/if 


/    X 

t5     \ 


^:ju  s  od  2^  ..^^  ^:s.  ^^ 

PRIXCETOX,   N.jJ. 

x>  €j  >r  -^  -r  I  c  J  :v     o  i.- 

SAMUEL    AG NEW, 

OF     P  H  I  L  A  I)  K  L  P  H  I  A  .     PA. 


'^    .^»>^S<^^5.;-^^3-<^^e-'-^^--^-!^3^ 


j)        Case,      ■       ^'^'^'°" J-' 

I  Sht^lf.      ^        Sectien..., |.... 

I        Book,  No.... J.. 


•*^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 

V 


http://www.archive.org/details/publicdiscussionOOplu 


PUBLIC  DISCUSSION 


DOCTRINE  OF   THE  TRINITY, 


ELDER    FREDERICK    PLUMMER, 
christian; 

AND  THE 

REV.  WILLIAM    L.    M'CALLA, 

PRESBYTERIAN. 


HELD  AT  RIDLEY,  DELAWARE  COUNTY,  PENNSYLVANIA, 

on  the  18th,  19th,  20th,  and  2l8t  of  January,  1842. 


.PHILADELPHIA: 

KAY  AND  BROTHER,  122  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1842. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  j'ear  1842,  by 

ELDER   FREDERICK   PLUMMER, 

In  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania, 


STEREOTYPED  BY  S.  DOUGLAS  WYETH, 

NO.  7  PEAR  STREET,  PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE. 


It  is  proper  to  state  that  no  pains  have  been 
spared  to  give  in  the  following  pages  a  correct 
Report  of  the  Discussion  which  they  purport  to 
contain.  A  firm,  and  it  is  believed,  a  just  reliance 
has  been  placed  on  the  Reporter,  in  sentiment  a 
Trinitarian,  for  an  honest  and  able  performance 
of  his  duty.     To  use  the  Reporter's  own  words: 

"The  arguments  are  believed  to  be  fairly  pre- 
sented, as  he  has  endeavored  to  act  with  perfect 
impartiality  towards  all  concerned.  But,  in  a  re- 
port thus  hastily  prepared,  errors  will  necessarily 
occur,  and  for  these  the  parties  themselves  should 
not  be  held  accountable.  In  some  instances,  where 
books  and  pamphlets  were  read  from  during  the 
discussion,  the  substance  has  been  faithfully  pre- 
served, but  without  a  particular  reference  to  the 
works." 

As  the  Reporter  did  not  superintend  the  press, 
the  Printers  employed  to  execute  the  work,  were 


IV  PREFACE. 

charged  to  adhere  rigidly  to  the  manuscript  copy; 
and  the  beUef  is  entertained,  on  good  grounds, 
that  they  have  not  failed  to  obey  the  instructions 
given  them. 

However,  that  no  cause  for  complaint  nor  cavil 
may  exist,  it  has  been  deemed  expedient  to  trans- 
mit the  original  manuscript,  as  received  from  the 
Reporter,  to  the  Trustees  of  the  Christian  Society 
at  Ridley,  in  Delaware  coimty,  Pennsylvania,  by 
whose  authority  it  has  been  published,  to  be  by 
them  deposited  in  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  Dela- 
ware county,  at  Chester,  for  safe  keeping,  refer- 
ence, or  comparison. 


TO  THE  PUBLIC. 


It  is  due  to  ourselves  and  to  the  public  to  make 
the  following  statement : — On  tiie  first  Smiday  in 
January,  1842,  the  following  notice  was  handed  to 
us  in  our  meeting-house,  m  Leiperville,  and,  by  the 
consent  of  the  trustees,  it  was  read : 

^^  Mr.  Plunimer, 

"  It  is  expected  that  the  Rev.  Wm.  L.  M'Calla 
will  preach  in  the  meeting-house  in  Leiperville,  on 
Thiursday  evening  next,  January  6th,  at  7  o'clock. 
The  congregation  that  worships  there,  is  respectfully 
invited  to  attend. 

(Signed)  *^  SAMUEL  M.  LEIPER.^ 


^j 


In  a  labored  controversial  speech,  continued  more 
than  three  hours,  by  Mr.  M'Calla,  our  Society  was 
repeatedly  denounced  as  "  God-denying  heretics," 
and  our  sentiments  were  grossly  misrepresented; 
towards  the  close  of  which  a  challenge  was  given 
to  us  to  meet  him  in  discussion.  Our  regard  for  the 
Truth,  and  the  Society  which  he  had  sa  unceremo- 
niously and  unhandsomely  assailed,  demanded  this 
1  *  (5) 


VI  TO  THE  PUBLIC. 

effort  at  our  hands.  Our  congregation  unanimously 
resolved  to  procure  the  best  stenographer  that  we 
could  obtain,  and  to  have  the  whole  proceedings  re- 
ported for  publication.  In  relation  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  work,  the  Reporter  takes  the  responsibility 
upon  himself,  and  we  think  that  those  who  heard 
the  debate  will  be  satisfied  with  its  correctness. 

The  object  of  controversy  should  be  to  elicit  truths 
and,  when  conducted  in  a  right  spirit,  such  will  be 
the  result.  This  was  our  only  desire  in  entering  into 
such  an  investigation  which,  we  sincerely  trust,  has 
terminated  to  the  honour  of  the  good  cause.  Con- 
fident that  Truth  would  sustain  us,  we  were  induced 
to  accept  the  challenge,  without  a  day  to  prepare  for 
the  contest.  Our  time,  after  the  appointment,  was 
employed  in  fulfilUng  prior  engagements,  until  the 
day  of  meetmg.  For  the  want  of  a  more  systematic 
arrangement  of  our  arguments — for  any  accidental 
omissions,  or  for  the  partial  defence  of  important 
points,  this  is  our  apology, 

F.  PLUMMER. 


PRELIMINARY. 


The  parties  met  on  the  17th  of  January,  1842, 
agreeably  to  previous  arrangement,  in  the  "  Chris- 
tian Church,"  in  Leiperville,  Delaware  county, 
Pennsylvania,  for  the  purpose  of  agreeing  upon  the 
rules  which  should  govern  the  discussion.  A  nume- 
rous assemblage  of  their  friends  were  present.  The 
following  rules  prepared  by  Mr.  M^Calla,  were  sub- 
mitted by  that  gentleman,  but  were  not  satisfactory 
to  Mr.  Plummer. 


RULES  OF  CONFERENCE, 

To  be  adopted  and  signed  this  17th  day  of  Jan- 
uary, 1842,  in  Leiperville,  Pennsylvania,  by  Frede- 
rick Plummer,  a  Unitarian,  and  W.  L.  M'Calla,  a 
Trinitarian,  on  the  question  whether  there  is  a  plu- 
rality of  persons  or  intelhgent  agents,  each  equally 
claiming  supreme  and  eternal  divinity,  in  the  one 
Divine  Essence,  supreme,  eternal  and  indivisible  :  or 
whether  there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Divine 
Essence. 

1.  The  discussion  shall  be  moderated  by  three 
men,  each  of  the  parties  choosing  one,  and  the  two 
choosing  a  third,  who  is  to  be  considered  the  Pre- 

(7) 


8 

sident  of  the  Bench :  none  to  be  members  of  any 
Church. 

2.  The  Bench  is  not  to  decide  the  merits  of  the 
question,  nor  the  weight  of  argument,  nor  the  ulti- 
mate length  of  the  debate;  but  they  are  to  keep 
order  and  settle  points  of  order,  according  to  these 
written  rules. 

3.  The  parties  shall  be  entitled  to  alternate  ad- 
dresses of  thirty  minutes  m  length,  with  this  restric- 
tion— that  the  time  consumed  in  settling  questions 
of  order,  shall  be  deducted  from  the  speaking  time 
of  the  party  who  shall  be  in  the  wrong. 

4.  The  discussion  to  commence  on  to-morrow,  the 
third  Tuesday  and  the  18th  day  of  January,  1842, 
at  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ridley,  Delaware 
county,  Pennsylvania,  at  10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and 
close  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.,  and  so  on  from  day  to  day 
until  the  parties  shall  be  satisfied. 

5.  The  debate  shall  be  opened  by  one  party  the 
first  morning,  and  by  the  other  party  the  second 
morning,  and  so  on  from  day  to  day,  until  the  par- 
ties shall  be  satisfied — so  that  the  closing  speeches 
of  days  shall  be  alternated  with  perfect  fairness. 

6.  If  one  party  shall  waive  his  right  to  speak,  the 
other  may  occupy  the  time  which  he  shall  have 
relinquished ;  and  if  one  shall  withdraw  from  the 
debate,  the  other  may  proceed  mitil  he  shall  be 
satisfied. 

The  first  paragraph  was  so  modified,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  INIr.  Plummer,  in  relation  to  the  question 
for  discussion,  as  to  retain  only  the  last  clause — "  Is 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  9 

there  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Divine  Essence  ?" 
It  was  also  agreed  by  the  parties,  that  the  Board  of 
Moderators  should  consist  of  Jive  persons  instead  of 
three — two  to  be  chosen  by  each  party,  and  the  four 
choosing  the  fifth,  who  should  be  considered  the 
President  of  the  Board — and,  also,  that  three  of  the 
five  should  not  be  members  of  any  church. 

Considerable  debate  arose  on  the  second  proposed 
rule,  as  to  the  propriety  of  empowering  the  Board  of 
Moderators  to  decide  the  merits  of  the  question,  or 
the  weight  of  the  arguments ;  and,  also,  on  the  fourth 
and  fifth  rules,  as  to  the  opening  and  closing  speeches, 
and  the  propriety  of  limiting  the  discussion  to  a  defi- 
nite period.  These  were  the  only  promment  points 
of  difference  between  the  parties,  in  the  settlement 
of  the  preliminary  arrangements. 

Mr.  Plummer  contended,  that  the  debate  should 
be  confined  to  a  limited  number  of  days  ;  and,  that, 
as  Mr.  M'Calla  was  the  challenger,  and  consequently 
would  open  the  discussion,  he,  (Mr.  P.)  was  justly 
entitled  to  the  closing  speech. 

Mr.  M^Calla  said,  that  similar  difficulties  had 
occurred  in  arranging  the  preliminaries  of  all  the 
discussions  in  which  he  had  been  engaged.  In  the 
rules  of  conference  proposed  by  Mr.  Campbell,  for 
the  government  of  their  debate  on  Christian  bap- 
tism, a  clause  was  introduced  providing  that  the  dis- 
cussion should  be  continued  until  the  people  were 
satisfied,  or  the  moderators  decided  that  enough  had 
been  said.  Mr.  Kneeland,  too,  had  claimed  the 
right  of  closing,  as  he  considered  himself  to  be  the 
challenged  party,  though  he  had  privately  and  pub- 


10  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

licly  given  verbal  and  written  invitations  to  the 
clergy  in  general,  to  defend  their  faith  in  public  de- 
bate. Mr.  Lane,  at  Milford,  made  the  same  claim, 
and  a  similar  statement.  He  (JNIr.  M'C.)  did  not 
desire  nor  need  exclusive  privileges.  They  could  not 
be  secured  to  either  by  the  principles  of  justice,  nor 
the  usages  of  theological  discussions.  He  claimed 
no  right  which  he  was  not  willing  to  accord  to  his  op- 
ponent, but  never  would  surrender  the  right  of  reply- 
ing to  his  arguments.  He  had  no  wish  to  deprive  his 
opponent  of  the  same  right.  To  the  application  of  a 
gag-law  he  would  never  consent.  The  right  of  the 
negative  to  close,  was  a  new  doctrine.  The  practice 
in  civil  courts  was  the  very  opposite  of  what  was  here 
claimed,  for  it  gave  to  the  affirmative  the  right  of 
both  opening  and  closing.  But  he  wished  not  to 
take  advantage  of  any  such  practice.  His  desire 
was  that  each  party  should  be  heard  fully  and  fairly, 
imtil  all  their  hot  shot  had  been  fired.  If  they  had 
not  sense  enough  then  to  quit,  their  hearers  would 
probably  close  the  debate,  by  leaving  them  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  alone. 

Mr.  Plummer.  From  the  last  remark  of  the 
gentleman,  he  appears  to  expect  a  large  meeting. 
Whether  large  or  small,  I  hope  the  discussion  will 
be  so  conducted  as  to  redomid  to  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  benefit  of  our  hearers.  I  came  here  to  ask 
nothing  but  what  was  right,  and  care  nothing  about 
the  gentleman's  Kentucky  or  Philadelphia  disputa- 
tions. I  asked  nothing  but  perfect  fairness,  and  am 
willing  the  gentleman  should  occupy  half  the  time. 
It  certainly  will  not  be  fair  for  either  to  have  both 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  11 

the  opening  and  closing  of  the  discussion ;  nor  is  it 
fair  for  the  gentleman  to  claim  the  right  of  deter- 
mining how  long  the  discussion  shall  continue.  That 
should  be  left  to  the  Moderators,  by  whose  decision 
I  am  willing  to  be  governed.  I  do  not  fear  the  gen- 
tleman's hot  shot ;  but  one  or  the  other  must  close 
the  discussion,  and  which  is  entitled  to  the  closing 
speech,  it  is  by  no  means  difficult  to  determine. 
The  gentleman  has  acted  imfairly  from  the  begin- 
ning of  this  controversy.  It  was  unfair  for  him  to 
advocate  in  this  house,  for  three  hours  and  a  half, 
his  own  peculiar  doctrines,  and  denounce  our  society 
as  "  God-denying  heretics."  If  our  views  are  wrong, 
we  are  open  to  conviction.  We  have  no  creed  to 
defend,  and  desire  only  to  embrace  the  truth  of  God. 

Mr.  M'Calla  said  he  had  been  accused  of  un- 
fairness— in  occupying  the  desk  of  this  house  on  a 
former  occasion. — He  had  understood  that  the  hoiise 
was  built  by  Unitarians,  and  was  a  "  Free  Church." 
If  mistaken,  he  should  like  to  be  set  right.  He  had 
been  requested  to  deliver  a  sermon  in  this  free 
church,  and  Mr.  Plummer  himself  had  given  the 
usual  notice.  He  never  intruded  himself  into  the 
pulpit  of  any  denomination. 

Where  does  my  opponent  get  the  right  to  deliver 
the  closing  speech  of  the  discussion  ?  I  have  yet  to 
see  that  any  man  has  such  a  right.  I  do  not  claim 
the  right  myself,  nor  can  it  be  claimed  as  a  right  by 
any  one.  The  possession  of  such  a  right  must  be 
the  result  of  conventional  agreement.  Never  will  I 
yield  that  as  a  right  which  can  only  be  asked  as  a 
favor.     And  I  never  heard  that  Moderators  had  the 


12  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

power  to  close  a  discussion,  though  the  subject  is  fa- 
miUar  to  me.  They  are  appointed  to  preserve  order 
according  to  conventional  rules  previously  established 
— not  to  say  what  arguments  we  are  to  use  and 
what  time  we  are  to  occupy.  As  to  the  bug-bear 
that  the  discussion  is  to  have  no  end,  all  those  in 
which  I  have  ever  engaged  had  a  termination,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  that  this  about  which  we  are  talking, 
if  it  ever  begins,  will  have  an  end  also.  Like  the 
Kentucky  horse-racer  who  considers  the  race  nearly 
won,  when  he  sees  the  tail  of  his  adversary's  horse 
switching,  I  shall  be  willing  to  close  whenever  I  dis- 
cover similar  symptoms  on  the  part  of  my  opponent. 

If  any  one  is  wilHng  to  take  my  place  in  the 
discussion,  I  shall  be  perfectly  satisfied  to  abdicate  ; 
but  if  I  am  to  assume  the  responsibility,  I  must 
be  allowed  to  judge  of  my  own  arguments,  and  I 
wish  my  adversary  to  do  the  same.  I  expected 
when  I  came  here  to  spend  a  long  time  and  have  a 
hard  tug  before  I  obtained  fair  play.  I  will  not 
consent  to  have  my  hands  tied,  but  give  me  fair  play 
and  my  own  time,  and  in  the  strength  of  my  Divine 
Master,  I  would  not  fear  to  meet  Daniel  O'Comiell 
himself. 

Mr.  Plummer  thought  the  gentleman's  remarks 
entirely  irrelevant.  He  had  nothing  to  say  in  reply, 
unless  it  could  be  shown  that  the  position  he  had 
assumed  was  untenable.  » 

The  gentleman  appears  to  fear  that  if  his  hands  are 
tied  he  will  not  have  sufficient  time  to  fire  all  his 
hot  shot.  I  should  suppose  his  hot  shot  would  be 
likely  to  come  long  before  tlie  close  of  the  discus- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITr.  13 

sion.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  refer  the  whole  mat- 
ter to  the  Moderators,  and  to  be  governed  by  such 
rules  as  they  shall  decide  upon.  I  have  been  ex- 
posed to  the  gentleman's  cold  shot  long  enough,  and 
am  now  ready  to  have  his  hot  shot  without  further 
debate. 

Mr.  M^Calla,  I  am  willing  to  limit  the  discus- 
sion, provided  the  right  of  closing  is  conceded  by 
my  opponent.  This  is  what  I  chiefly  desire,  as  I 
camiot  conscientiously  take  the  risk  of  having  the 
discussion  brought  to  a  close  in  the  midst  of  my  ar- 
guments. I  never  can  consent  to  have  my  arguments 
cut  in  two  by  my  adversary. 

Mr.  Plummer.  It  seems  then  that  we  are  to  have 
no  last  speech,  unless  the  gentleman's  arguments 
should  be  of  such  a  character  that  they  camiot  be 
cut  in  two.  I  should  suppose,  after  the  mmierous 
battles  he  has  '^fought  and  ivon,'^  the  gentleman 
would  begm  to  have  more  confidence  in  hmiself. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  supposed  his  adversary  thought  his 
own  arguments  so  good,  that  they  could  not  be  cut 
in  two.  For  himself,  he  looked  for  strength  to  his  Di- 
vine Master,  whose  cause  he  came  here  to  defend ; 
but  he  could  not  consent  to  betray  that  cause  into 
the  hands  of  his  Master's  adversary.  If  any  one  was 
willmg  to  take  his  place  in  the  discussion,  and  go  on 
with  the  gag  applied,  it  would  with  him  be  quite  as 
satisfactory. 

Mr.  Plummer.  No  gag-law  has  been  proposed 
nor  intended. 

Mr.  M^  Calla  said  it  was  very  evident  his  oppo- 
nent did  not  intend  that  he  should  have  fair  play. 


14  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Mr.  Plummer.  Would  it  not  be  fair  play  for 
him  to  occupy  half  the  time  ? 

Mr.  M^Calla.  It  is  all  that  I  desire,  but  I  can 
never  consent  to  betray  my  Master's  cause,  by  putting 
it  into  the  power  of  my  opponent  to  gag  me. 

Mr.  Plummer  never  heard  of  a  case  where  either 
gentleman  was  allowed  to  speak  or  to  close  as  he 
pleased.  Was  willing,  he  repeated,  to  leave  the  pre- 
liminaries for  the  Moderators  to  arrange,  and  to  com- 
mence the  discussion  to-morrow  morning. 

Mr.  M^  Calla  came  here  to  advocate  a  good  cause, 
i(  permitted  to  do  so  with  his  hands  untied.  If  not, 
he  should  to-morrow  give  his  argument  in  another 
place,  and  leave  his  adversary  to  his  own  course. 

Mr.  Plummer.  The  gentleman,  in  the  course  of 
this  debate,  has  referred  to  the  triumphant  victories 
won  by  him  on  former  occasions,  but  that  he  had 
never  been  able  to  obtain  satisfactory  rules  without 
a  long  tug.  He  now  threatens  to  abandon  the  dis- 
cussion and  fight  the  battle  alone.  The  gentleman 
is  at  liberty  to  commence  his  Quixotic  crusade  as 
soon  as  he  pleases.  He  shall  be  at  perfect  liberty  to 
flog  all  Kentucky,  and  then  go  to  Ireland  and  flog 
O'Connell  also.  But  if  this  discussion  is  to  go  on, 
we  must  have  equal  rights,  and  a  Board  of  Mo- 
derators. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  again  referred  to  rules  adopted  on 
former  occasions,  for  the  government  of  similar  de- 
bates. He  denied  that  the  challenge  to  the  proposed 
discussion,  had  been  given  by  him.  At  the  close  of 
the  discourse  referred  to  by  his  opponent,  he  (Mr. 
M'C.)  had  walked  from  the  pulpit  to  the  stove,  but 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  15 

saw  very  plainly  that  he  was  to  have  no  chal- 
lenge, so  long  as  his  old  white  hat  was  visible.  He 
then  went  out  into  the  rain,  when  the  challenge  was 
loudly  given  by  his  adversary.  He  then  came  back 
and  accepted  it,  and  he  was  determined  to  give  his 
views  to-morrow,  whatever  might  be  the  result  of 
the  present  debate.  He  did  not  come  here  to  boast, 
but  to  defend  the  cause  of  his  Divine  Master. 

Mr.  Phimmer.  I  understand  the  gentleman 
boasts  that  he  has  been  twice  triumphant  in  Ken- 
tucky. I  have,  however,  in  my  possession  such 
proofs  as  will  establish  a  very  different  conclusion. 

The  gentleman  denies  that  he  gave  a  challenge  at 
the  close  of  his  three  hours  and  a  half  speech.  Here, 
also,  we  have  an  abundance  of  proof  As  to  this 
great  cause  of  his  Divine  jNIaster,  let  us  get  at  it 
without  further  delay. 

Mr.  M^Calla.  The  very  same  suggestion  was 
made  by  Mr.  Campbell ! 

Mr.  Plummer.  The  gentleman  seems  to  think 
"the  Campbells  are  coming" — that  "the  Campbells 
will  be  upon  him." 

Mr.  M^Calla  said,  he  was  no  bully,  and  came 
not  here  on  a  gladiatorial  expedition. 

Mr.  Plummer.  I  have  been  accused  of  unfair- 
ness. Was  it  unfair  for  me  to  give  notice  from  this 
desk  that  the  gentleman  was  to  preach  in  this  house  ? 
Was  it  fair  or  unfair,  for  the  gentleman  to  abuse  us 
in  this  house  for  three  hours  and  a  hah"?  Was  it 
fair  or  unfair  for  him,  here,  in  our  own  house,  to  pro- 
scribe us  as  "Jesuits  and  God-denying  heretics?" 
Notice  was  given,  I  am  told,  in   another  church. 


16  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

that  M'Calla  was  coming  here  to  "  smash  Plummer 
on  his  own  ground."  Was  this  fair  or  unfair  ?  I 
say  again,  let  us  have  Moderators,  let  them  make 
the  rules,  and  let  the  discussion  proceed. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  have 
Moderators,  and  to  allow  them  to  draw  up  rules.  But 
I  must  have  a  word  in  the  adoption  of  those  rules. 
I  have  a  conscience  to  consult  in  this  matter,  and 
would  sooner  die  than  consent  to  betray  the  cause 
of  my  Master  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 

Mr.  Plummer.  The  gentleman  says  he  has  a 
conscience — we  have  none !  that  he  has  a  Divine 
Redeemer — we  have  none  !  But  we  have  too  much 
deHcacy  to  send  any  set  of  men  to  hell ! — By  what 
authority  does  he  assume  the  right  to  send  us  there  ? — 
Would  the  gentleman  willingly  be  called  to  order  by 
Moderators  in  whom  he  has  not  sufficient  confidence 
to  allow  them  to  make  rules  for  our  government  ? 
I  would  say  to  the  gentleman  that  the  Board  of 
Moderators  should  have  power  to  control  him,  as 
well  as  rules  for  the  government  of  the  discussion. 

It  is  the  book  of  God  we  are  to  refer  to,  and  I 
frankly  say  to  you  we  are  all  liable  to  en\  If  the 
gentleman  were  to  say,  you  are  mistaken  in  mathe- 
matics, and  3  times  1  make  1  and  not  3,  I  would 
hear  him  calmly,  but  endeaver  to  convince  him  of 
his  error.  I  wish  to  discuss  no  subject  which  we 
cannot  approach  in  a  prayerful,  candid  and  solemn 
manner. 

I  have  once  before  met  a  Presbyterian  clergyman, 
in  discussion,  and  when  we  parted  it  was  with  a 
shake  of  the  hands,  and  with  mutual  good  feeling. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  17 

He  may  not  have  been  in  so  many  battles,  nor  be 
able  to  show  as  many  scars  as  my  opponent,  but  in 
talents  and  learning  this  clergyman  was  quite  equal 
to  the  gentleman,  and  in  argument  his  superior. 

If  the  gentleman  and  his  friends  are  determined 
to  abuse  and  brov/-beat  us,  what  if  we  should  say 
that  they  are  God-denying  heretics  ?  We  have  as 
much  proof  as  they  to  warrant  the  sweeping  denun- 
ciation. I  have  not,  however,  an  unpleasant  feeling 
towards  a  Presbyterian.  One  of  their  best  traits  is 
their  readiness  for  discussion.  If  they  must  splits  it 
is  only  after  a  long  debate.  They  are  a  learned  and 
pious  body,  and  I  never  entertain  any  other  feeUng 
towards  them  than  that  of  respect,  so  long  as  their 
conduct  corresponds  with  their  professions. 

I  have  been  willing  in  this  discussion  to  meet  the 
gentleman  on  a  perfect  level,  and  to  leave  him  with- 
out excuse ;  therefore  proposed  to  refer  the  settle- 
ment of  all  preliminaries  to  the  Moderators. 

Mr.  M'  Calla.  Well,  whenever  I  am  ready  to  go 
on  a  regular  fighting  expedition,  I  may  be  willing  to 
do  as  my  adversary  here  proposes.  But  as  I  have 
more  important  business  at  present,  I  shall  take  the 
liberty  of  giving  my  views  to-morrow  at  the  place 
appointed  for  the  discussion ;  and  if  my  opponent 
will  only  come,  and  make  such  a  soft  speech  there 
as  he  has  now,  he  need  be  imder  no  apprehension 
from  the  absence  of  Moderators.  He  may  bring 
forward  all  his  arguments,  and  I  will  endeavor  to 
answer  them.  Nor  do  I  desue  to  deprive  him  of 
the  same  privilege  which  I  ask  for  myself. 
2* 


18 

Mr.  Flummer,  This  is  not  the  first  time  the 
gentleman  has  given  a  challenge  and  then  drawn 
back.  Does  he  want  the  opportimity  again  to  send 
this  congregation  m  a  body  to  hell,  without  a  Board 
of  Moderators  to  keep  him  in  check  ?  Would  it  be 
right  to  allow  him  to  get  up  and  without  restramt 
denomice  us  as  God-denymg  heretics  in  a  Presby- 
terian meeting-house  ?  There  are  many  Presbyterian 
mmisters  who  rank  high  for  respectability,  to  whom 
the  gentleman  would  be  as  unwilling  to  do  justice  as 
to  us.  If  he  would  take  the  stand  with  a  smcere 
desire  to  convict  and  convert  us,  it  would  give  us 
great  pleasure  to  hear  him.  We  wish  to  know  what 
Jesus  Clirist  requires  of  us.  It  is  not  our  object  to 
gain  a  victory.  In  this  enlightened  age  it  behooves 
us  to  approach  the  subject  and  discuss  it  in  a  proper 
manner.  Therefore  I  desire  the  appointment  of  Mo- 
derators, and  rules  for  the  government  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  M^  Calla.  If  there  is  no  other  mode  of  get- 
ting at  the  question,  suppose  we  give  you  the  right 
to  speak  three  hours  and  a  half  to-morrow,  as  an 
offset  to  my  speech  here,  about  which  so  much  com- 
plaint has  been  heard. 

Mr.  Phimmer.  I  will  meet  you  as  proposed, 
and  give  you  a  speech  of  three  hours  and  a  half; 
but  I  must  then,  if  I  choose,  be  permitted  to  run. 

Mr.  M'  Calla.  And  I  will  occupy  the  balance  of 
the  time. 

Mr.  Plummer,  Agreed  —and  give  all  the  "  hot 
shot.'' 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  19 

[Some  farther  conversation  of  a  desultory  charac- 
ter ensued,  durmg  which  Mr.  M'Calla  stated  his 
understanding  of  the  arrangement  to  be,  that  the 
discussion  was  to  commence  on  the  following  morn- 
ing, and  be  continued  by  alternate  speeches  of  three 
hours  and  a  half,  until  the  parties  should  be  satisfied. 
Mr.  Plummer  objected  to  any  such  construction,  and 
the  meeting  adjourned  at  half  past  seven,  P.  M.,  to 
meet  the  next  day,  at  ten,  A.  M.,  in  the  Presbyterian 
church,  at  Ridley.] 


20  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


Tuesday,  January  18,  1842. 

The  parties  and  their  friends,  pursuant  to  adjourn- 
ment, met  at  10,  A.  M.,  in  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
Ridley,  Delaware  county.  The  house  was  crowded 
at  an  early  hour  by  a  very  intelligent  auditory,  as- 
sembled from  all  parts  of  the  county,  among  whom 
were  several  clergymen  of  diiferent  denominations. 
Mr.  Plummer  took  the  pulpit,  with  a  view  to  give  his 
address  of  three  hours  and  a  half. 

Samuel  M.  Leiper,  Esq.  stated  that  the  audience 
had  been  called  together  for  the  pm-pose  of  hearing 
a  discussion  between  Mr.  M'Calla  and  Mr.  Plummer 
on  the  doctrme  of  the  Trinity,  and  he  hoped  the  dis- 
cussion would  be  conducted  m  an  orderly  manner. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  then  read  sundry  rules  prepared  by 
him,  similar  to  those  submitted  on  the  previous  even- 
ing, except  as  to  the  time  to  be  occupied  in  speaking. 
He  said  that  Moderators  had  been  insisted  upon  by 
Mr.  Plurumer,  during  the  debate  of  the  last  evening, 
and  he  was  now  prepared  so  far  to  meet  him  on  his 
own  gromid.  He  should  now  also  insist  on  rules 
and  a  Board  of  Moderators. 

Mr.  Plummer  stated  his  views  as  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  previous  evening.  But  he  was  still  wil- 
ling to  have  a  Board  of  Moderators. — He  was  pre- 
pared to  go  on  with  his  speech  of  three  hours  and  a 
half,  while  the  Moderators  were  preparing  the  Rules, 
and  should  then  be  willing  to  meet  the  gentleman  as 
originally  proposed.    But  he  should  still  insist  on  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  21 

right  of  the  Moderators  to  close  the  discussion,  or  fix 
some  definite  period  for  its  termination. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  said  this  was  again  bringing  up  a 
subject  of  debate  which  was  fully  discussed  and 
settled  last  evening.  He  had  told  many  that  Plum- 
mer  would  not  this  morning  comply  with  his  agree- 
ment. Wlien  he  proposed  that  Mr.  Plummer  should 
open  this  morning  with  a  speech  of  three  hours  and 
a  half,  it  was  with  the  understanding  that  the  discus- 
sion was  to  be  continued  until  the  parties  were  satis- 
fied. He  never  could  consent  to  waive  his  right  to 
reply  to  the  arguments  of  his  opponent.  He  was 
ready  to  agree  to  every  thing  fair  and  equal.  He 
came  here  to  defend  the  cause  of  his  Divme  Master 
— give  him  fair  play  and  it  was  all  he  desired. 

Mr.  Plummer.  For  me  to  occupy  this  pulpit  for 
three  hours  and  a  half  this  morning,  was  the  gentle- 
man's own  proposal.  I  have  come  here  at  his  own 
invitation,  and  with  the  full  understanding  that  at 
the  expiration  of  the  time  I  was  to  "  be  allowed  to 
run."  For  the  truth  of  this  statement,  I  appeal  to 
the  Reporter,  whom  the  gentleman  himself  has  de- 
clared to  be  "  one  of  the  best  in  the  United  States." 
The  gentleman  has  occupied  my  desk  for  three  hours 
and  a  half,  and  I  am  now  ready  to  occupy  this  the 
same  length  of  time,  agreeably  to  his  own  proposal, 
and  balance  accoimts. 

Mr.  M'' Calla  was  willing  to  meet  his  opponent 
on  the  very  ground  for  which  he  had  so  strenuously 
contended.  He  (Mr.  M'C.)  had  called  on  Mr. 
Leiper  the  previous  evening,  and  told  him  he  would 
not  meet  that  man  without  rules  and  Moderators. 


22  PLUMMEK  AND  m'cALLA's 

If  Moderators  were  appointed,  he  was  ready  to  go 
on, — if  they  were  not  to  he  appointed,  he  should 
dechne  proceeding  with  the  discussion.  Nothing  but 
Moderators  would  do. 

M)\  Plummer.  I  have  acceded  to  the  gentleman's 
own  proposal,  as  taken  down  by  the  Reporter  at 
]Mr.  Leiper's  special  request.  I  am  willing  the  Re- 
porter and  Mr.  Leiper  should  decide  as  to  the  truth 
of  my  statement. — And  I  have  made  no  objection  to 
a  Board  of  Moderators. 

Mr.  S.  Leiper  said  he  would  not,  as  one  of  the 
trustees  of  the  house,  consent  that  any  discussion 
should  go  on  without  Moderators. 

Hon.  George  G.  Leiper  said  he  had  attended  none 
of  the  preliminary  meetings,  but  as  a  pew-holder  in 
this  chm*ch  he  was  in  favor  of  Moderators.  For  the 
honor  of  his  country — for  the  honor  of  religion — he 
hoped  this  discussion  would  be  conducted  with  de- 
corum. He  had  intended  himself  to  oflfer  rules,  but 
would  now  suggest  that  each  gentleman  should 
nominate  one  of  a  committee,  these  nominate  a 
third,  and  the  three  retire  and  report  rules  for  the 
approval  of  the  meeting. 

Mr.  Plummer.  I  am  ready  to  accede  to  the  pro- 
position, after  I  have  balanced  accounts. 

Mr.  M^Calla  said  he  began  to  think  he  was  not; 
the  man  expected  here.  He  must  be  permitted  to 
discuss  the  truth  as  he  preaches  it.  He  asked  no  ad- 
vantage— nothing  but  fair  play — ^liberty  of  speech — 
the  right  of  choosing  his  own  argmnents,  and  the 
number  of  those  arguments.  He  referred  to  a  copy 
of  rules  adopted  in  his  discussion  with  Mr.  Lane,  in 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  23 

which  it  was  agreed  that  the  Moderators  should  keep 
order  but  not  decide  the  merits  of  the  question  nor 
the  length  of  the  debate.  He  would  not  agree  to  be 
restricted  in  liberty  of  speech  nor  conscience.  Give 
him  such  rules  as  he  could  approve — rules  without 
improper  restrictions — and  he  should  be  willing  to 
defend  the  cause  of  his  Master  before  even  the  British 
Parliament  or  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Plummer  asked  no  rights  which  should  inter- 
fere with  the  right  of  speech  or  conscience.  He 
asked  only  what  was  afforded  to  him  last  evening. 
When  the  gentleman  gave  the  challenge,  it  was  ac- 
cepted by  him  on  no  other  terms  than  that  Modera- 
tors should  be  appointed.  Let  them  be  appointed 
now,  and  frame  the  rules  for  the  government  of  the 
discussion,  and  in  the  meantime  he  would  address 
the  meeting  as  he  had  been  invited  to  do. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper  said  that  three  hours  had  been 
spent  on  the  previous  evening  in  the  same  kind  of 
debate.  On  behalf  of  the  authorities  of  the  church 
he  would  now  say,  that  Mr.  M'Calla  should  be  per- 
mitted to  open  the  discussion,  and  continue  the  same 
for  thirty  minutes — that  Mr.  Plummer  should  then 
have  the  right  to  speak  for  thirty  minutes — and  there- 
after each  party  continue  to  occupy  alternate  half 
hours  until  the  authorities  of  the  house  should  close 
the  discussion. 

Mr.  Plummer.  Will  it  be  said  now  that  our 
rights  have  not  been  infringed  ? 

Sketchley  Morton,  Esq.  I  consider  this  a  most 
unjust  and  tyrannical  procedure  on  the  part  of  the 
authorities  of  the   house.     I  attended  a  previous 


24 

meeting,  and  presumed  that  the  miderstanding  was, 
at  least  with  a  majority  of  those  who  attended,  that 
the  reason  why  we  came  to  this  house  was  because 
it  was  more  commodious  and  would  accommodate 
more  people — ^not  that  the  discussion  should  be  un- 
der the  control  of  the  authorities  of  this  house.  Such 
a  course  would  be  arbitrary  and  tyrannical,  and  ex- 
tremely unfair  towards  ^Ir.  Plummer.  It  would  be 
one-sided  and  mijust,  and  I  for  one  shall  oppose  such 
a  measure.  If  we  are  to  have  a  discussion,  let  it  be 
conducted  on  fair  principles — let  both  of  the  parties 
choose  Moderators,  and  then  they  will  have  an  equal 
chance.  But  for  one  party  to  assume  the  right  to 
dictate  to  the  other,  and  deprive  him  of  his  rights,  is 
a  high-handed  measure,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  frowned 
down  by  this  meeting. 

M7\  M^Calla  was  willing  Mr.  Plummer  should 
begin  first. 

Mr.  Plummer.  I  am  wiUing  the  proceedings  of 
last  evening  shall  be  read  by  the  Reporter,  and  will 
abide  the  decision  of  this  respectable  assembly. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper  said  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman was  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Plummer.  I  am  willing  to  leave  it  to  this 
audience  to  say  which  of  us  is  out  of  order.  That 
gentleman  has  placed  himself  in  an  attitude  not  very 
commendable.  I  am  not  an  intruder  in  this  house. 
I  have  been  invited  here,  and  provoked  to  this  dis- 
cussion. This  respectable  audience  know  their  rights, 
and  I  trust  they  will  not  see  mine  trampled  upon. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper.  Mr.  M^Calla  will  read  the 
rules. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  25 

Mr.  M^Calla.     I  want  nothing  but  right. 

Mr,  Plummer.  The  authorities  of  this  house  are 
not  my  controllers. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper.  Mr.  M'Calla  will  now  pro- 
ceed for  thirty  minutes,  when  Mr.  Plummer — 

Mr.  Scholefield.  Mr.  M'Calla  appears  to  be 
very  eager  now  to  proceed.     When — 

Mr.  M'Calla.  Has  that  man  a  right  to  speak 
here  ?     I  know  him  of  old.     He — 

Mr.  Scholefield.  Yes,  I  have  a  right  to  speak 
here,  if  liberty  of  speech  is  to  be  preserved  in  a  free 
country.  I,  too,  know  that  gentleman  well.  I  said 
last  evening  that  this  would  be  the  result.  [Great 
confusion.] 

Mr.  Charles  H.  Plummer  requested  that  the 
agreement  entered  into  by  the  parties  last  evening, 
might  be  read  by  the  Reporter. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper.  We  do  not  wish  to  hear  it. 
[Excitement.] 

Mr.  Plummer  wished  it  to  be  understood  that 
nothing  could  be  accomplished  last  evening.  He 
was  now  willing  to  proceed  mitil  they  should — 

[Here  a  motion  was  made  that  Hon.  George  G. 
Leiper  take  the  chair.  (Carried.)  The  Reporter  was 
also  appointed  Secretary  of  the  meeting.] 

Rev.  Mr.  Cooper,  (Methodist,)  said  it  was  very 
desirable  that  the  rules  should  be  agreeable  to  the 
parties  immediately  concerned.  WTiere  they  are 
imable  to  agree,  let  the  meeting  or  the  Moderators 
decide.  He  moved  that  each  of  the  gentlemen 
choose  two  Moderators,  and  that  the  four  choose  a 
3 


26  PLtJMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

fifth,  who  should  be  considered  the  President  of  the 
Board.     [Adopted.] 

Mr.  Flummer  related  an  anecdote. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  was  ready  to  resign,  &c.  &c.  &c. 

Mr.  Cooper.  It  has  been  announced  by  the  au- 
thorities of  the  house,  that  Moderators  are  to  be  ap- 
pointed, and  if  either  of  the  parties  now  leave,  the 
discussion  ends ;  but  the  party  so  leaving  will  be  con- 
sidered by  this  meeting  as  having  surrendered  the 
field  to  his  opponent. 

Mr.  Scholefield  and  Mr.  Sketchley  Morton,  were 
nominated  as  Moderators  by  Mr.  Plummer. 

Hon.  George  G.  Leiper  and  Rev.  Mr.  Hall,  were 
nominated  by  Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper,  as  Moderators  on 
the  part  of  Mr.  M'Calla. 

A  motion  was  made  and  carried,  that  the  Modera- 
tors appointed  do  now  retire  to  choose  a  fifth  and 
prepare  the  rules  for  the  government  of  the  discussion. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper  moved  that  any  rules  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  M^Calla  or  Mr.  Plummer,  should 
be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Moderators.   [Carried.] 

A  verbal  resolution  was  offered  by  Mr.  Cooper, 
instructing  the  Moderators  to  report  forthwith,  which 
after  amendment  was  stated  by  the  chair  to  be  as 
follows : — 

Resolved,  That  definite  instructions  be  given  to  the 
Moderators  to  report  rules  forthwith,  to  be  binding 
without  the  consent  of  either  party. 

Adjourned  for  half  an  hour. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  27 


Tuesday,  §  past  11,  A.  M. 

Mr.  Morton,  of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  reported 
that  they  had  selected  Mr.  Wm.  Eves  as  President 
of  the  Board,  and  had  agreed  upon  the  following 
rules,  to  wit : — 


RULES  OF  CONFERENCE, 

Adopted  by  the  Board  of  Moderators,  to  be  signed 
by  Frederick  Plummer  and  Wm.  L.  M'Calla. 

1.  The  proposition  for  discussion  shall  be  as  fol- 
lows, viz  : — "/^  there  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Divine  Essence .?'' 

2.  The  parties  shall  be  entitled  to  alternate  ad- 
dresses of  thirty  minutes  in  length,  with  this  restric- 
tion, that  the  time  consumed  in  settling  questions 
of  order,  shall  be  deducted  from  the  speaking  time 
of  the  party  who  shall  be  in  the  wrong. 

3.  This  discussion  shall  not  continue  longer  than 
next  Friday,  at  12  o'clock,  M. 

4.  It  shall  commence  this  day  at  12  o'clock,  and 
shall  continue  one  hour,  each  speaking  thirty  minutes, 
and  then  there  shall  be  a  recess  of  one  hour — the 
discussion  to  be  resumed  at  2  o'clock,  and  con- 
tinued until  4  o'clock. 

5.  Thereafter,  the  discussion  shall  commence  at 
10  o'clock,  A.  M.,  and  continue  until  12  o'clock — 


28  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

then  a  recess  of  one  hour — ^then  commence  at  one 
o'clock  and  continue  until  three  o'clock,  P.  M.  And 
so  on  until  adjournment. 

Signed  this  18th  day  of  January,  1842,  on  behalf 
of  the  Board. 

WM.  EVES. 
Agreed  to  by 

Frederick  Plummer. 


Mr.  M^Calla  said  that  with  perfect  respect  to 
the  Moderators  he  would  make  some  observations. 
What  was  now  requested  of  him  was,  that  he  should 
give  the  power  to  the  Moderators  to  close  or  control 
the  discussion  in  just  such  a  manner  as  they  shall 
think  proper.  Mr.  Plummer  had  agreed  to  give 
them  this  power,  and  it  was  expected  that  he  should 
do  so  likewise.  This  was  virtually  saying  that  any 
thing  the  Moderators  agreed  to  must  be  binding  on 
him — whatever  they  suggested,  he  must  agree  to. 
He  never  did  and  never  would  place  his  conscience 
in  the  keeping  of  any  body  of  men.  For  liberty  of 
speech  and  conscience  his  fathers  on  the  other  side  of 
the  Atlantic  died  at  the  stake  and  imder  the  gallows. 
It  was  designed  by  these  rules  to  give  to  the  Mode- 
rators the  power  of  the  Pope.  He  would  make  no 
man  his  Pope.  Suppose  the  Moderators  had  pro- 
posed for  discussion  the  Three  Persons  in  the  Trinity 
— (and  such  a  suggestion  had  been  made) — would 
he  therefore  be  bound  to  comply  ?  He  believed  the 
rules  had  been  framed  with  impartiality,  so  far  as 

If 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  29 

the  Moderators  were  enlightened.     But  he  would 
sooner  suffer  death  on  the  gallows  or  block  than 
accede  to  them.     He  never  would  consent  either  to 
limit  the  time  or  waive  the  right  of  replymg  to  the 
arguments  of  his  opponent.     If  permitted  to  go  on, 
the  discussion,  he  presumed,  would  not  have  ex 
tended  to  Fri'day.    He  should  probably  have  stopped, 
himself.     All  he  wished  was  time  to  finish  his  ar- 
guments.    It  was  impossible  to  say  how  much  time 
might  be  wasted  in  the  settlement  of  trifling  questions 
of  order.     It  was,  indeed,  provided  that  the  time  so 
consumed,  should  be  deducted  from   the  speaking 
time  of  the  party  who  should  be  in  the  wrong.     So 
polished  a  gentleman  as  Mr.  Plummer  would  not 
interrupt  him,  of  course,  but  he  might  take  up  his 
time  in  discussing  points  of  order.     He  had  never 
discussed  a  subject  in  his  life  without  being  accused 
of  wandering  from  the  point.     He  wished  to  feel 
secure  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  occupy  his  half 
hour  mimolested.     Suppose  Mr.  Plummer  to  be  the 
conscientious  and  polished  gentleman  which  every 
one  knows  him  to  be,  and  I  the  ruffian  he  believes 
me — he  might  not  interrupt  me,  but  I  will  not  put 
myself  in  the  power  of  my  opponent.     I  came  here 
to  advocate  my  Master's  cause,  and  not  to  put  my- 
self at  the  mercy  of  any  antagonist.     Leave  me  my 
half  hour,  and  the  right  to  close  in  my  own  manner, 
and  I  am  your  man. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hall,  (Baptist)  said,  the  Moderators  con- 
ceived they  had  the  right  to  call  to  order,  and  no  one 
else.     If  either  were  called  to  order,  the  point  would 
3* 


so  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

be  decided  by  the  Board.  If  interruptions  occurred, 
the  time  so  occupied  would  be  deducted  from  the 
speaking  time  of  the  party  declared  to  be  in  the 
wrong.  Friday  at  12  o'clock  was  fixed  upon  for 
closing  the  debate,  because  two  of  the  Moderators 
would  be  compelled  to  leave  at  that  tune.  They  did 
not  wish  to  legislate  for  those  who  might  be  ap- 
pointed in  their  stead.  He  was  a  Baptist,  and  con- 
sequently a  Trinitarian.  He  agrees  with  Mr.  M'Calla 
on  the  question  proposed  for  discussion,  but  should 
be  compelled  to  leave  on  Friday. 

Mr.  Phimmer.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  how 
fixing  a  time  to  close  the  discussion  is  to  cut  ofi"  the 
gentleman's  arguments.  If  three  or  four  days  are  not 
long  enough,  let  us  add  to  the  time  afterwards.  If 
there  should  be  a  prospect  of  a  great  increase  of  con- 
verts, let  us  continue.  If  this  Board  break,  let  an- 
other be  appointed.  With  regard  to  conscience,  no 
man  has  a  right  to  suppose  his  conscience  is  to  ex- 
pand over  other  men's  consciences. 

Rev.  Mr.  Helme,  (Presbyterian,)  proposed  that  the 
rules  should  be  so  modified  as  to  read  that  the  Board 
will  sit  imtil  Friday,  and  then  appoint  others  to  sup- 
ply any  vacancies  which  may  occur. 

Mr.  M'  Calla.  I  know  very  well  why  thmgs  have 
taken  this  course.  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians, 
Baptists,  Methodists,  all  think  they  understand  these 
things  better  than  the  old  soldier  who  has  been  fight- 
ing his  Master's  battles  all  his  days.  They  whisper 
in  his  ear — "  You  must  not  let  this  man  out  of  your 
clutches!"     If  that  man  is  to  be  defeated,  the  glory 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  31 

will  be  due  to  Almighty  influence  alone.  If  I  were 
in  argument  a  Paul  or  an  Apollos,  I  would  not  give 
up  an  honest  opinion  in  order  to  meet  that  man. 

Mr.  Cooper  thought  Mr.  M'Calla  did  not  correctly 
understand  the  deducting  of  time.  He  seemed  to 
be  under  the  impression  that  his  half  hour  might  be 
taken  away  by  interruptions.  The  explanation  is, 
that  the  time  shall  be  deducted  and  the  disputant 
have  his  full  half  hour,  unless  the  Board  shall  decide 
against  him.  No  human  being  can  tell  when  these 
interruptions  may  occur.  One  may  have  to  stop  be- 
fore the  close  of  half  his  speech.  He  understood 
Mr.  M'Calla  to  say  that  he  withdrew  his  name — that 
he  could  not  on  his  conscience,  submit  to  the  arbi- 
trary dictation  of  Moderators,  when  his  Master's 
cause  was  concerned.  All  were  bound  to  respect 
his  scrupulousness;  and  he  would  therefore  move  to 
amend  the  rules  by  strikmg  out  that  clause  which  re- 
stricts the  discussion  to  Friday  at  12  o'clock,  and  in- 
serting that  the  Board  shall  then  be  permitted  to 
resign,  but  the  parties  shall  be  heard  until  they  are 
satisfied. 

Rev.  Mr.  Mason  (Presbyterian)  hoped  the  pro- 
posed amendment  would  be  adopted.  He  should  be 
greatly  disappointed  if  this  large  meeting  were  to 
break  up  without  being  gratified  with  the  discussion 
anticipated.  He  entertained  equal  respect  for  both 
gentlemen.  A  victory  would  doubtless  be  pleasing 
to  either  party,  but  in  reality  was  not  worth  a  straw. 
But  if  the  great  principles  of  Christianity  were  to  be 
advanced,  the  time  occupied  in  the  discussion  would 
not  be  spent  in  vain. 


32  PLUMMER  AND  m'gALLA's 

Mr.  Plummer  referred  to  the  proceedings  of  the 
last  evenmg,  and  the  invitation  given,  for  him  to  oc- 
cupy this  house  for  three  houi's  and  a  half  this  morn- 
ing. He  came  here  in  consequence  of  that  invita- 
tion, but  was  deprived  of  his  rights.  An  appeal  was 
made  to  the  respectable  assembly  present,  and  a 
Board  of  Moderators  appointed  to  prepare  rules  for 
the  government  of  the  discussion.  That  Board  had 
reported,  and  the  report  had  been  acceded  to  by  him. 
And  now  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  and 
Methodists  had  been  invoked  to  hear  him  denounced 
as  one  who  has  no  conscience — no  Redeemer.  But 
the  gentleman's  conscience  must  be  respected.  His 
conscience,  and  not  the  Board  of  Moderators,  must 
decide — his  conscience  must  say  when  he  is  to  di'aw 
to  a  close.  What  is  the  object  of  all  this,  if  advan- 
tage is  not  to  be  taken  ?  Does  that  gentleman  wish 
to  harangue  this  assembly  without  control,  and 
denounce  me  as  a  fiend  of  hell  ?  Or  does  he  think 
to  weary  me  out  by  continuing  an  unnecessary  dis- 
cussion, after  all  his  arguments  are  exhausted?  I 
ask,  as  my  right,  that  the  rules,  as  reported,  may  be 
enforced. 

Mr.  M^Calla.  All  that  I  said  was  that  conscience 
must  regulate  me,  and  not  the  debate.  I  must  be 
regulated  by  conscience,  and  have  therefore  with- 
drawn my  name. 

Mr.  Mason  was  prepared  to  move  that  if  this  dis- 
cussion did  not  go  on,  Mr.  Plummer  should  have  the 
house. 

Mr  Schohfield  had  a  very  few  words  to  say.  As 
one  of  those  selected  to  draw  up  rules,  he  distinctly 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  33 

understood  that  they  were  empowered  to  prepare 
rules  which  should  be  final,  without  the  action  of 
the  meeting.  These  rules  had  been  unanimously- 
agreed  upon  by  the  Board.  It  now  appeared  that 
though  the  Board  had  acted  strictly  according  to 
their  mstructions,  Mr,  M'Calla  should  have  been 
consulted ! — they  should  be  governed  by  his  dictum  ! 

Mr.  M^  Calla.  What,  after  I  have  abdicated,  like 
Napoleon  ? 

Mr.  Phimmer  said  that  when  parties  met  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel,  they  should  be  willing  to  give 
and  take  a  little-.  He  was  most  desirous  that  tliis 
discussion  should  go  on.  If  his  knowledge  of  the 
sacred  book  was  erroneous,  he  wanted  information. 
When  convinced  that  he  was  wrong,  he  should  bow 
with  submission. 

Mr.  Helme  hoped  then,  that  with  these  views  he 
would  consent  that  the  Moderators  should  modify 
the  rule,  as  proposed. 

Mr.  Plummer.  It  was  not  the  gentleman's  con- 
science nor  his  own  which  should  be  consulted  in 
fixing  upon  a  definite  time  for  closing  the  discussion, 
but  the  wishes  of  this  respectable  assembly.  He 
wished  that  they  should  be  satisfied.  Besides,  how 
was  the  Reporter  to  report  this  discussion,  if  it  has 
no  end? 

Mr.  Scholefidd  was  pleased  with  the  remark  of 
Mr.  Helme,  but  could  not  consent  to  dictation  from 
any  one.  He  did  not  boast  of  his  conscience,  but 
had  his  ideas  of  right  and  wrong.  He  should  there- 
fore withdraw  from  the  Board. 

Mr.   Hall  could  not   discover  the  bone  of  con- 


34  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA^S 

tention.  Feared  that  a  party  feeling  would  be  got 
up,  which  might  lead  to  disgraceful  consequences. 
Came  here  with  a  feeling  of  impartiality,  and  had 
endeavored  so  to  act  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of 
Moderators.  Should  have  been  willing  to  adopt  the 
rule  proposed  by  Mr.  M'Calla,  but  others  of  the 
Board  had  a  different  view  from  him.  The  rule  had 
first  been  written  according  to  the  original  copy,  and 
had  it  been  supposed  that  Mr.  M'Calla  would  have 
objected  to  it  in  its  present  shape,  the  Board  would 
probably  have  adopted  it  as  written.  Mr.  Plummer, 
he  believed,  had  not  objected  to  a  modification. 

Mr.  Plummer  said,  he  had  insisted,  previous  to 
the  adoption  of  the  rules,  that  the  discussion  should 
be  limited  to  a  definite  period. 

Mr.  Hall  Then,  if  we  stay  here  until  the  18th 
of  Jmie,  we  shall  not  get  nearer  to  the  matter,  so 
long  as  one  insists  on  a  limit  to  the  discussion,  and 
the  other,  that  it  shall  be  unlimited.  He,  therefore, 
tendered  his  resignation. 

[The  Secretary  of  the  meeting  was  here  requested 
by  the  Chair,  at  the  suggestion  of  several  persons,  to 
read  the  resolution  by  which  the  Board  of  Mode- 
rators had  been  instructed  to  report  rules ;  and  the 
resolution  was  accordingly  read.] 

Mr.  M'  Calla  said,  he  had  been  asked  to  give  up 
the  right  to  continue  the  discussion  after  Friday  next. 
His  conscience  told  him  this  would  be  doing  his 
Master  injustice.  He  gave  up  a  great  deal  when  he 
agreed  that  Mr.  Plummer  should  occupy  that  desk 
for  three  hours  and  a  half,  and  he  did  so  only  because 
he  was  to  have  the  right  to  go  on  in  reply. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  35 

Mr,  Cooper  said,  (in  reference  to  the  resolution 
read  by  the  Secretary)  that  the  meeting  could  now 
see  precisely  where  they  were.  He  had  made  the 
motion  giving  the  Moderators  the  power  to  report 
rules,  but  the  resolution  had  not  been  reported  in  the 
language  in  which  it  was  offered.  He  thought  the 
meeting  had  the  power  to  recommit  the  rules  with 
instructions  to  amend.  No  man  should  be  asked  to 
lay  down  his  conscience.  He  denied  any  participa- 
tion or  influence  in  originating  the  discussion. 

The  Reporter  said  that  he  had  not  intended  to 
take  any  part  whatever  in  this  discussion.  But  as 
the  accuracy  of  his  report  had  been  called  in  question 
by  the  last  speaker,  he  felt  it  his  duty  to  say,  that  he 
came  here  to  act  with  perfect  impartiality  towards 
all  concerned.  The  resolution  was  correctly  reported, 
and  to  sustain  him  in  this  assertion  he  appealed  to 
the  Chair. 

The  Chair  said  the  resolution  proposed  by  Mr. 
Cooper  had  been  amended  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Mason  and  he  believed  some  other  gentleman,  and 
its  substance  stated  from  the  Chair.  Mr.  Cooper  had 
not  reduced  his  resolution  to  writing,  and  this  was 
probably  the  cause  of  the  misapprehension. 

Mr.  Cooper  did  not  intend  to  call  m  question  the 
integrity  of  the  Reporter.  He  had  no  doubt  he  gave 
the  resolution  as  he  imderstood  it.  The  fault  was 
with  himself  in  not  reducing  his  motion  to  writing. 

Mr,  Plummer,  The  principal  object  should  be 
to  get  to  business  without  further  delay.  I  think 
twenty -four  speeches  quite  sufficient.  Could  not  all 
the  arguments  be  adduced  in  three  days  ? 


36  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

M7\  Scholejield.  When  the  Moderators  were  ap- 
pointed, they  were  instructed  to  report  rules  for  the 
house.  But  as  I  did  not  receive  my  appointment 
from  this  congregation,  but  from  one  of  the  parties 
in  the  proposed  discussion,  I  am  therefore  opposed 
to  the  submission  of  our  report  to  an  authority 
which  I  do  not  acknowledge.  I  deny  all  right  of 
dictation  from  such  a  quarter.  JNIr.  M'Calla  talks 
much  of  his  readiness  to  "y/e/c?*'  all  that  is  fair.  He 
wants  nothing  but  what  is  fair !  I  should  like  to 
know  what  that  party  yields,  who  refuses  to  relin- 
quish one  single  point  ?  Why,  he  has  even  boasted 
that  he  never  does  give  up  any  thing  in  the  cause  of 
his  Master.  The  plain  English  of  the  matter  is,  that 
he  intends  to  weary  out  his  opponent  by  objecting 
to  all  arrangements,  but  such  as  are  manifestly  in  his 
own  favor. 

Mr.  M^  Calla.  Can  the  gentleman  be  found  to 
whom  these  remarks  refer  ? — I  do  not  know  to  whom 
they  are  applicable. 

Mr.  Scholejield.  That  is  very  possible,  for  I  really 
believe  the  gentleman  does  not  kiiow  himself. 

Mr.  Mason  said  that  Mr.  M'Calla  should  then  be 
declared  out  of  the  pale  of  the  chiu:ch. 

The  Chair  explained  the  rule  of  re-commitment, 
as  existing  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the 
meeting  might  recommit  the  report  to  the  Board  of 
Moderators,  with  instructions  to  amend. 

Mr.  Scholejield  said  the  case  referred  to  by  the 
Chair  was  not  analogous.  In  one  case  the  report 
was  made  to  the  house  for  their  subsequent  action — 


PUBLIC  DEBATE   OX  THE  TRINITY.  37 

in  the  other  the  action  of  the  Moderators  was  to  be 
final,  as  this  power  had  been  given  them  at  the  time 
of  then  appointment. 

3Ir.  Mason  thought  tliat  some  misunderstanding 
existed  in  relation  to  this  matter,  and  that  Mr.  Coo- 
per should  be  allowed  to  explam.  He  thought  it 
proper  that  the  report  should  be  submitted  to  the 
meeting. 

Mr.  Cooper  made  some  explanations,  and  stated 
his  views  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Scholefield  again  spoke  to  the  pomt  of  order. 

Mr.  Pluvimer  wished  the  house  to  understand 
that  he  had  not  and  should  not  consent  to  give  his 
opponent  the  right  to  say  when  this  discussion  was 
to  close.  He  thought  that  should  be  decided  by  the 
house  or  the  Moderators. 

[Here  the  question  of  recommitment  was  sub- 
mitted to  the  meeting  by  the  Chair,  and  declared  to 
be  decided  in  the  affirmative.] 

Mr.  Plumnier  supposed  that  as  it  had  been  so 
decided,  he  also  had  now  a  right  to  fall  back  on  his 
conscience. 

Mr.  M^  Calla  wished  that  the  report,  so  far  as  re- 
lated to  the  deducting  of  time,  might  be  put  in  such 
plain  language  that  it  could  not  be  mismiderstood. 

Mr.  Plummer.  The  gentleman  understands  very 
well  how  to  get  things  to  suit  his  conscience.  I  have 
no  doubt  the  Moderators  will  act  conscientiously. 

Mr.  M^  Calla  could  not  adopt  the  motto  on  a  sign 
in  Philadelphia — "my  country  right  or  wrong." 

Mr.  Plummer  thought,  as  the  question  would 
now  be  settled  as  to  the  deducting  of  time,  the  meet- 

4 


38  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

ing  had  better  adjom-n  for  an  hour,  to  give  the  audi- 
ence time  to  get  their  dinners. 

Mr.  M'  Calla.  0  yes,  we  had  better  have  dinner, 
and  then  we  can  discuss  the  point  for  the  rest  of  the 
day — it  is  so  very  amusing  ! 

Mr.  Plummer  had  a  conscience  in  relation  to  this 
matter. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  2  P.  M. 


Tuesday,  2  P.  M. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Mr.  Hall,  on  be- 
half of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  reported  that  they 
had  agreed  to  adopt  the  rules  as  before  reported, 
except  the  third,  which  had  been  amended  so  as  to 
read  as  follows  : — 

"  3.  The  present  Board  of  Moderators  shall  be 
permitted  to  resign  on  Friday  next,  at  12  o'clock,  M., 
if  they  please  so  to  do,  but  the  parties  shall  be  heard 
until  they  are  satisfied." 

Mr.  ilf '  Calla  here  read  a  rule  signed  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell, in  his  discussion  with  that  gentleman  on  Bap- 
tism, to  the  effect  that  each  disputant  should  have 
the  privilege  of  speaking  thirty  minutes  without  in- 
terruption, unless  he  chose  to  waive  his  right, 

Mr.  Plummer  said,  he  had  acceded  to  the 
re-commitment,  though  the  course  taken  by  the 
meeting  was    contrary  to  his  views  of  right  and 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  39 

wrong.  But  the  gentleman  was  evidently  determined 
to  avoid  the  discussion. 

Mr.  M'  Calla  thought  the  language  of  the  rules^ 
in  relation  to  the  deducting  of  time,  might  lead  to 
misunderstanding  in  the  course  of  the  discussion. 
He  was  desirous  to  be  seciu-ed  in  the  possession  of 
his  half  hour,  without  interruption. 

M)\  Plummer.  Go  on,  then.  I  am  here  under 
the  control  of  those  who  can  turn  me  out,  if  I  be- 
come disorderly. 

Chairman.  This  is  all  out  of  order,  gentlemen. 
As  far  as  I  have  the  ability,  I  shall  do  my  duty  here, 
without  fear  or  favor.  I  hope  the  resolutions  will 
now  be  unanimously  adopted. 

[The  question  was  then  submitted  to  the  meeting, 
the  rules  declared  to  be  adopted,  and  the  Chairman 
stated  that  there  was  no  further  business  before  the 
meeting. 

Mr.  Hall  consented  to  retain  his  seat  as  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  and  Mr.  Scholefield 
also,  at  the  unanimous  request  of  the  Board,  con- 
sented to  remain.] 

Mr.  Plummer.  In  the  present  shape  of  the  rules, 
it  is  impossible  to  say  when  the  discussion  will  ter- 
minate. I  am  still  desirous  that  some  definite  time 
should  be  fixed,  for  closing  the  debate. 

Mr.  Mason.  If  the  gentlemen  will  only  go  on, 
the  good  sense  of  the  audience  will  suggest  to  them 
when  the  debate  ought  to  close. 

Mr.  Plummer.  When  is  it  to  terminate  ?  will  be 
asked — and  I  have  no  idea  of  taxing  the  patience 
of  this  respectable — 


40  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Mr.  jSrCalla.     Aha! 

Mr,  Plummer.  ^^  Aha  !"  the  gentleman  says — but 
I  have  a  conscience  m  this  matter. 

Mr.  M^Calla  related  the  anecdote  of  the  man 
with  the  spring  leg.  He  was  walking  and  walkmg 
to  this  day,  and  his  opponent  seemed  to  fear  that  this 
discussion  also  would  keep  going  on. 

Mr.  Plummer  said  if  he  were  now  to  agree  to  go 
on  with  the  discussion  he  had  no  doubt  the  gentle- 
man would  again  fall  back  on  his  conscience. 

Mr.  M^Calla.  A\Tienever  I  make  a  promise,  I 
consider  it  inviolable. 

Mr.  Plummer.  You  have  nevertheless  violated 
the  agreement  of  last  evening. 

Mr,  M^Calla  said  the  agreement  of  last  evening, 
as  he  miderstood  it,  was  that  the  discussion  was  to 
commence  this  mornmg  with  a  speech  of  three  hours 
and  a  half  from  his  opponent,  and  be  continued  by 
alternate  speeches  of  three  hours  and  a  half  from 
each  party,  until  both  were  satisfied. 

Mr.  Plummer  again  appealed  to  the  Reporter. 

The  Reporter  said  it  was  with  great  reluctance 
that  he  took  any  part  whatever  in  this  debate.  He 
came  here  to  report  the  discussion  impartially,  and 
though  in  sentiment  a  Trinitarian,  was  perfectly  in- 
difTerent,  as  to  the  result.  He  had,  however,  been 
so  repeatedly  called  upon  m  relation  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  previous  evening,  that  courtesy  required 
him  to  make  some  reply.  The  remarks  of  Mr. 
M'Calla  were  substantially,  that  if  there  was  no 
other  way  to  get  at  the  subject,  Mr.  Plummer  might 
occupy  this  pulpit  three  hours  and  a  half  this  morn- 


PUBLIC   DEBATE   ON  THE  TRINITY.  41 

ing,  as  an  offset  to  liis  discourse  about  which 
there  had  been  so  much  complaint — to  which  Mr. 
Phimmer  agreed,  remarking  that  at  the  close  of  his 
speech  "he  must,  if  he  chose,  be  permitted  to  run." 

Mr.  M^Calla.     Oh,  that  is  a  very  different  thing. 

Mr.  Phimmer  said  he  had  been  advised  by  a  re- 
spectable Presbyterian  gentleman  to  have  the  time 
fixed — to  give  the  power  to  some  one  to  close  the 
discussion — as  INPCalla  was  determined  to  weaiy 
him  out,  if  he  could  not  defeat  him  by  argument. 
To  the  Board  of  Moderators  properly  belonged  that 
power,  and  both  parties  should  obey  the  voice  of  the 
Board  in  this  matter. 

Mr.  M^Calla.  I  never  promised  to  obey — my 
opponent  has.  The  course  he  is  now  pursuing  is  the 
very  thing  I  expected.  He  has  determined  from  the 
beginning  not  to  go  on,  even  if  he  has  the  privilege 
of  commencing  every  morning  and  closing  every 
afternoon. 

Mr.  Plummer.  We  will  try  to  meet  him  never- 
theless, until  Friday  noon. 

The  Chairman.  Let  the  rules  be  signed,  and  the 
discussion  go  on. 

Adjourned,  for  the  Moderators  to  take  their  seats. 


THE  DISCUSSION. 


QuESTiox. — Is  there  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the 
Divine  Essence? 


Tuesday,  Jan.  IS,  1S42, 
i  past  2,  P.  M. 

IMR.  M'CALLA. 


I  will  commence  this  discussion  with  a  few  words 
of  explanation.  By  "  a  plm-ality  of  persons  in  the 
divine  essence/^  we  are  not  to  imderstand  a  plu- 
rality of  beings  m  one  person.  To  say  that  three 
beings  are  one  being,  or  three  persons  one  person, 
would  be  an  arithmetical  absurdity ;  and  yet  I  shall 
be  able  to  show  that  this  is  my  opponent's  doctrine. 
I  once  knew  a  man  to  be  confined  m  a  mad-house 
for  saying  once  one  is  two,  and  yet  my  opponent's 
doctrine  is  equally  absurd. 

iSIan  has  a  material  being  and  an  immaterial  be- 
ing. From  the  Scriptures  we  learn,  that  one  of  these 
can  be  in  the  earth,  while  the  other  is  in  heaven  or 
hell.  Divine  inspiration  also  teaches  us,  that  man, 
in  his  natural  state,  is  depraved,  ignorant,  helpless 

(43) 


44 

and  guilty ;  and  that  to  save  him  from  tiie  effects 
of  divine  justice,  the  interposition  of  a  Redeemer  is 
necessary. 

The  doctrine  of  a  Redeemer  possessed  of  supreme 
and  eternal  divinity,  has  always  been  held  by  the 
Christian  Church.  "  How  can  they  be  saved,  (Ire- 
naeus  says)  unless  they  who  wrought  their  salvation 
upon  earth,  be  God?'^  The  early  church  declared 
Theodotus,  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  to 
be  thus  guilty  of  the  "  God-denying  heresy."  This 
heresy  has  always  had  a  stronger  affinity  to  any  other 
religion  on  earth,  whether  Jewish,  Mohammedan,  or 
Pagan,  than  to  the  Christian  religion.  In  evidence 
of  this,  I  need  hardly  go  farther  than  to  a  book 
written  by  Mr.  Kinkade,  a  leader  of  my  opponent's 
society — a  book  which  has  been  printed,  circulated, 
and  recommended,  as  "  Bible  Doctrine."  Whatever 
this  book  says,  therefore,  should  be  considered  as 
expressing  the  sentiments  of  these  Unitarians,  or 
''Christians'^  as  they  denominate  themselves.  This 
book  claims  the  Anti-Trinitarian  Jews  as  vv^itnesses 
against  the  Christian  Trinitarians.  The  declaration 
of  Mr.  Kinkade  is,  that  the  latter  "  have  never  been 
able  to  produce  one  book  written  by  a  Jew  in  favor 
of  the  Trinity."  These  Jews,  it  will  be  recollected, 
were  the  people  who  denied  the  Messiaship  of 
Jesus,  blasphemed  his  name,  and  crucified  him  as  a 
malefactor. 

Dr.  Priestly  may  be  considered  as  the  Father  of  my 
opponent's  doctrine  in  this  country;  and  yet  he 
openly  opposed  the  worship  of  Christ  as  a  ''  modern 
Christian  idolatry.'^     "Upon  the  very  same  prin- 


PUBLIC   DKBATE   ON  THE   TRINITY.  45 

ciples  and  in  the  very  same  manner  (he  says)  by 
which  dead  men  came  to  be  worshipped  by  the 
ancient  idolaters,  there  were  introduced  into  the 
Christian  Chm-ch,  in  the  first  place,  the  idolatrous 
ivorship  of  Jesus  Christ,  then  of  the  Virgin  IVIary, 
and  lastly,  that  of  innumerable  other  saints  and  an- 
gels also.'^ 

Dr.  Miller,  in  a  sermon  delivered  in  Baltimore,  at 
the  ordination  of  Rev.  Wm.  Nevins,  says :  "  In  great 
cities,  likewise,  or  at  least  in  states  of  society  similar 
to  what  is  commonly  found  in  such  places,  has 
generally  commenced  that  fatal  decline  from  ortho- 
doxy, which  began,  perhaps,  with  calling  in  question 
what  are  styled  the  more  rigid  peculiarities  of  re- 
ceived creeds,  and  ended  in  embracing  the  dreadful 
soul-destroying  errors  of  Arius  and  Socinius.  This 
language  has  not  been  adopted  lightly,  but  is  the 
result  of  serious  deliberation  and  deep  conviction. 
And  in  conformity  with  this  view  of  the  subject,  the 
author  cannot  forbear  to  notice  and  record,  a  decla- 
ration made  to  himself  by  the  late  Dr.  Priestly,  two 
or  three  years  before  the  decease  of  that  distinguished 
Unitarian.  The  conversation  was  a  free  and  ami- 
cable one,  on  some  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
reUgion.  In  reply  to  a  direct  avowal  on  the  part  of 
the  author,  that  he  was  a  Trinitarian  and  a  Calvinist, 
Dr.  Priestly  said — ^  I  do  not  wonder  that  you  Cal- 
vinists  entertain  and  express  a  strongly  unfavorable 
opinion  of  us  Unitarians.  The  truth  is,  there  neither 
can  nor  ought  to  be  any  compromise  between  us. 
If  you  are  right,  we  are  not  Christians  at  all ;  and  if 
we  are  right,  you  are  gross  idolaters.'     These  were, 


46  PLUMMER  AND  m'c ALLANS 

as  nearly  as  can  be  recollected,  the  words,  and  most 
accurately,  the  substance  of  his  remarks.  And  no- 
thing certainly  can  be  more  just.  Between  those 
who  believe  in  the  divinity  and  atonement  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  those  who  entirely  reject  both,  ^  there 
is  a  great  gulf  fixed,'  which  precludes  all  ecclesiastical 
intercourse.  The  former  may  greatly  respect  and 
love  the  latter,  on  account  of  other  qualities  and 
attainments;  but  certainly  cannot  regard  them  as 
Christians,  in  any  sense  of  the  word ;  or  as  any  more 
in  the  way  of  salvation,  than  Mohammedans  or 
Jews." 

In  this  Dr.  Priestly  and  Dr.  Miller  agreed.  The 
affinity  of  Unitarians  to  Mohammedans  is  firmly  es- 
tablished by  their  "  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  his  illus- 
trious Excellency  Ameth  Ben  Ameth,  Ambassador 
of  the  Mighty  Emperor  of  Fez  and  Morocco,  to 
Charles  II.  King  of  Great  Britain."  In  this  epistle 
they  call  the  Trinitarians  "idolizing  Christians." 
But  they  consider  the  "pens"  of  the  English  Anti- 
Trinitarians,  and  "the  sword"  of  Mohammed,  as  en- 
listed in  a  common  cause  against  these  "idolizing 
Christians."  They  therefore  claim  the  honor  of 
being  the  "  nearest  fellow  champions"  of  their  Mo- 
hammedan brethren ;  and  therefore  "  heartily  salute 
and  congratulate  his  Excellency,  and  all  who  were 
with  him,  as  votaries  and  fellow-worshippers  of  that 
sole  supreme  Deity  of  the  Almighty  Father  and 
Creator."  The  God  which  they  here  call  "Fa- 
ther" is  the  very  one  which  is  worshipped  by  Mr. 
Kinkade  and  my  opponent;  and  in  such  a  way 
as  to  show  that  they  are  "fellow-worshippers"  with 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  47 

the  Pagans  also,  in  opposition  to  real  Christians. 
Jupiter,  the  supreme  God  of  the  Pagans,  was  ori- 
ginally called  Jovis  Pater — Jove  the  Father.  The 
name  Jove  was  derived  from  Jehovah,  the  Hebrew 
name  of  the  God  of  Trinitarian  Christians.  Now, 
though  the  Unitarians  may  find  no  consistent  ob- 
jection to  the  name  of  Jove  the  Father,  the  primitive 
Christians,  we  are  informed  by  Origen,  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom rather  than  give  this  name  to  their  God. 
Let  me,  too,  have  my  portion  among  the  followers 
of  Jesus,  and  not  among  those  who  fight  with  "pens'' 
as  the  champions  of  Pagans  and  Mohammedans." 

Mr.  Pierpont,  of  Boston,  wrote  a  beautiful  little 
poem.  It  was  so  very  sweet  that  it  got  admitted  into 
the  "Presbyterian"  of  Philadelphia,  and  would  have 
passed  without  comment,  but  for  the  squeamishness 
of  a  cynical  correspondent,  who  observed  as  a  fault 
in  it,  that  it  professed  that  the  Mohammedans,  wor- 
shipping in  their  mosques,  were  accepted  of  God, 
though  they  did  deny  Him  of  Nazareth.  I  there- 
fore, by  no  means,  object  to  have  it  said  that  I  con- 
sider the  doctrine  as  fundamental. 

My  opponent's  brother,  Mr.  Kinkade,  at  page  50 
of  his  "Bible  Doctrine,"  has  a  very  affectionate  ad- 
dress to  Trinitarians,  the  object  of  which  is  to  con- 
vince them  that  they  should  "become  rational  be- 
ings," and  no  longer  "  reject  the  fellowship  of  these 
pious  "  Unitarians.     It  commences  : — 

^^ Dear  Brethren: — If  by  the  phrase,  tJiree  pei'- 
sons  in  the  Godhead,  you  do  not  mean  three  beings, 
three  offices,  three  attributes,  three  modes  of  exist- 
ence, nor  any  other  three  such  things,  what  do  you 


48 

mean  ?  If  you  can  give  no  definition  of  the  terms 
by  which  you  express  your  faith,  you  do  not  know 
what  you  express  when  you  use  those  terms.  If 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  an  inexphcable  mystery 
that  you  cannot  possibly  understand,  and  if  you  can- 
not explain  the  terms  by  which  you  attempt  to  ex- 
press it,  then  you  neither  know  what  you  speak,  nor 
whereof  you  affirm.  Now  in  the  name  of  common 
sense,  I  ask  why  do  you  make  those  expressions 
which  you  acknowledge  are  unintelligible  to  your- 
selves, essential  articles  of  religion,  when,  at  the 
same  time,  you  know  they  are  not  in  the  Bible  ? 
And  in  the  name  of  Christian  charity,  I  ask  why  do 
you  reject  from  your  fellowship  pious  Christians, 
Avhose  morals  are  irreproachable,  and  stigmatize 
them  as  infidels  and  enemies  of  the  cross,  merely 
because  their  minds  are  not  capable  of  receiving  a 
doctrme,  that  you  say  is  mcomprehensible  to  your 
own  minds,  or  because  they  refuse  to  express  their 
faith  in  certain  unscriptural  terms,  the  meaning  of 
which  you  confess  you  do  not  understand  your- 
selves ?  And  in  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ,  before 
whose  judgment  seat  we  must  all  stand,  I  ask  when 
did  he  authorize  any  set  of  men  to  go  into  all  the 
world,  and  teach  all  nations  that  if  they  did  not  be- 
lieve in  a  Trinity  of  three  self-existent,  coequal,  co- 
essential,  coeternal  persons,  each  one  of  whom  is 
God  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  that  they 
should  all  be  damned  ? 

"  Now,  bretln-en,  as  I  propose  these  questions  in 
love,  I  hope  you  will  attend  to  them  with  candor,  and 
investigate  the  subject  with  that  diligence  and  ho- 
nesty, which  become  rational  beings  inquiring  into 
the  things  that  belong  to  their  eternal  state.  As 
error  never  can  profit  us,  we  should  in  all  our  reli- 
gious inquiries  make  truth  our  aim,  and  the  Bible 
our  guide.  May  God,  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  guide  us 
into  all  truth." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  49 

Here  Mr.  Kinkade  recognises  Jesus  Christ  as  our 
final  judge,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  our  guide  into 
all  truth,  and  both  as  objects  of  Divine  worship. 
Can  a  Christian,  taught  of  God  according  to  his 
word,  worship  as  a  judge  of  angels  and  men,  a  per- 
son who  is  not  omnipresent,  omnipotent,  indepen- 
dent, and  in  fact,  a  divine  person?  And  can  he 
pray  to  any  but  a  divine  person,  as  an  mfallible 
guide  to  heaven?  Real  Christians  give  that  wor- 
ship to  Christ  which  is  due  to  the  Supreme  and  Eter- 
nal God.  These  counterfeit  Christians  worship  him 
as  a  created  being — "  the  first  being  that  God  cre- 
ated.'' With  such  sentiments,  they  are  the  more 
guilty  for  assuming  this  adorable  name. 

They  say,  "  We  love  pious  Christians  whose  mo- 
rals are  irreproachable !"  We  cannot  extend  our 
charity  to  them.  We  dare  not  fraternize  with  infi- 
dels— the  enemies  of  our  Divine  Redeemer. 

If  we  are  to  beheve  theu  own  declarations,  there 
is  not  one  expression  in  this  book  that  is  not  mi- 
scriptural — for  they  demand  express  authority  for 
every  thing.  I  shall  be  able  to  show,  in  the  course 
of  the  discussion,  that  this  express  authority  is  much 
wanting  on  their  part. 

They  tell  you  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  can- 
not be  understood — that  it  is  unintelligible,  incom- 
prehensible. These  Pagan  Christians  will  not  admit 
that  religion  has  any  mystery;  yet  the  Scriptures 
declare,  that  "Great  is  the  mystery  of  Godliness, 
God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  The  alphabet  is  a  mys- 
tery to  the  untutored  child — but  it  is  not  unintelligi- 
ble to  those  who  have  learnt  it. 
5 


50  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

MR.  PLUMMER. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  Moderators, 

I  feel  it  due  to  this  large  and  respectable  as- 
sembly, to  make  an  apology,  as  my  opponent  has 
not,  for  calling  them  out  in  this  extraordinary  man- 
ner. I  would  also  refer  to  the  mamier  in  which  this 
discussion  has  been  provoked.  Our  meeting-house 
was  solicited  by  and  granted  to  the  Presbyterians, 
and  a  notice  was  read  by  myself  from  the  desk,  that 
Mr.  M'Calla,  of  Philadelphia,  would  preach  to  our 
congregation  on  the  following  Thursday  evening. 
And  what  sort  of  a  discourse  do  you  think  he  gave  us  ? 
Not  a  gospel  sermon,  for  he  announced  at  the  outset 
that  his  object  was  controversial,  but  an  harangue 
of  three  hours  and  a  half! — Not  like  the  present 
address  referrmg  us  to  God-denying  heretics  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centm'ies.  No !  but  denouncing  and 
sending  us  all  to  hell  as  "  God-denying  heretics" — 
assuming  to  be  Christians  when  we  were  "the  worst 
enemies  that  Jesus  Christ  had."  By  what  right,  I 
would  ask,  does  that  gentleman  presume  to  denounce 
us  as  God-denying  heretics,  the  enemies  of  Jesus 
Christ,  because  we  differ  from  him  on  some  points 
of  Christian  doctrine  ?  In  so  doing,  does  he  mani- 
fest the  meek  and  lowly  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Is 
he  not  rather  assuming  the  right  to  judge  and  pro- 
scribe those  whose  lives  are  holy  and  devout  because 
they  will  not  subscribe  to  his  absurd  dogmas  ? 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  51 

The  author  of  this  attack  accuses  us  of  "making  a 
rehgion  by  attempting  to  improve  on  the  Bible,  that 
we  are  infidels  and  atheists,  denying  every  thing 
sacred  in  that  holy  book.''  The  object  of  the  attack 
is  perfectly  understood.  Much  excitement  has  pre- 
vailed through  our  preaching  in  this  section  of  the 
country, — the  word  of  God  has  been  embraced — 
and  the  creeds  of  men  are  going  into  disrepute. 
Many  are  coming  out  from  the  world  and  confessing 
the  Lord. 

It  is  with  us  as  it  was  with  the  children  of  Israel 
when  they  passed  into  the  land  of  the  Moabites. 
The  Moabites  said,  "the  Israelites  will  eat  us  up," 
so  the  Moabites  and  Midianites  combined  together 
and  Balak  sent  for  Balaam  to  come  and  curse  Israel. 
(Numbers  xxii.  xxiii.  xxiv.)  But  unlike  Balaam  of 
old,  this  modern  Balaam,  who,  by  his  own  confes- 
sion, has  been  brought  here  by  a  "  Holy  Alliance" 
of  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Methodists  and  Episco- 
palians to  put  us  down,  hesitates  not  to  curse  those 
whom  the  Lord  blesseth. 

After  hearing  the  gentleman  for  three  hours  and 
a  half,  we  were  brow-beaten  into  the  acceptance  of 
a  challenge  to  defend  the  doctrine  for  which  he  had 
presumed  to  denounce  us.  This  is  our  apology  for 
consenting  to  appear  before  you  in  this  public  dis- 
cussion ;  and  I  hope  that  this  protracted  meeting 
may  result  in  something  better  than  many  have  anti- 
cipated— the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  souls. 

We  are  here  assembled  to  discuss  the  question : — 
"  Is  there  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Divine  Es- 
sence?"   To  show  you  what  the  Presbyterians  un- 


52  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

derstand  by  this  question,  I  will  refer  you  to  their 
Confession  of  Faith: — "  There  is  but  one  only  living 
and  true  God,  who  is  infinite  in  being  and  perfection, 
a  most  pure  Spirit,  invisible,  without  body,  parts  or 
passions,  immutable,  immense,  eternal,  incomprehen- 
sible," &c.  And  "  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there 
be  three  persons  of  one  substance,  power  and  eter- 
nity— God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  Father  is  of  none,  neither  begot- 
ten nor  proceeding ;.  the  Son  is  eternally  begotten  of 
the  Father,  the  Holy  Ghost  eternally  proceeding  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son." 

Now  there  is  much  in  all  this  which  we  do  not  be- 
lieve. This  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  maintains  the 
existence  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.  Not 
three  substances,  the  gentleman  says — he  does  not 
mean  three  beings  :  the  Confession  of  Faith  says — 
''  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost !"  Does  not  this  mean  three  7  We  must  be 
governed  by  the  language  ;  or  is  this  language  to  be 
considered  unmeaning?  The  sentiments  are  pre- 
sumed to  be  conveyed  by  the  words.  If  there  is  no 
definite  meaning  attached  to  this  Confession  of  Faith, 
how  are  we  to  understand  its  doctrines  ?  The  exist- 
ence of  three  distinct  beings,  is  evidently  the  doctrine 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith ;  but  we  say  that  the  terms 
three  persons  in  the  Godhead^  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Bible ;  hence,  that  the  doctrine,  as  well  as  the 
language;  is  unscriptural. 

When  we  approach  this  subject,  it  ought  to  be 
with  a  prayerful  solemnity.  Ought  we  not  in  speak- 
ing of  God,  to  use  God's  words  ?    Is  not  the  doctrme 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  53 

which  requh'es  unscriptural  language  suspicious? 
In  national  concerns  we  say,  what  is  the  law  ?  and 
what  is  the  letter  of  the  constitution  by  which  we 
are  guided  ?  In  a  last  will  and  testament,  do  we  not 
take  great  care  to  observe  minutely  the  letter — ^the 
express  language  of  the  instrument — and  to  attach 
to  it  no  meaning  which  is  not  authorised  by  custom 
and  analogy  ?  If  a  doubtful  word  occur  it  is  to  be 
decided  by  an  impartial  view  of  the  whole  instru- 
ment. We  are  not  to  add  to  the  constitution,  nor  a 
word  to  a  last  will  and  testament.  And,  saith  the 
Prophet,  "Every  word  of  God  is  pure — add  not 
thou  to  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee,  and  thou  be 
found  a  liar."  But  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  an 
addition  to  the  word  of  God ;  and  to  those  that  add 
to  this  Word,  shall  be  added  the  plagues  that  are 
written  in  the  book.  It  is  one  plague  to  make  peo- 
ple believe  this  creed — another  to  make  them  under- 
stand it,  when  they  say  they  believe  it. 

'''  Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord." 
It  does  not  say  our  God  is  three,  nor  that  we  may 
-have  two  other  Gods  !  The  language  of  scripture  is, 
^Uhe  High  and  Holy  One," — not  the  Holy  three, 

"Suppose  that,  on  an  impartial  examination  of 
the  Scriptures,  the  followmg  facts  should  be  disco- 
vered as  unquestionably  true  ; — That  in  as  many  as 
thirty  instances  God  is  styled  ^  the  Holy  Three  of 
Israel ;'  that  in  many  other  cases  he  is  styled  '  the 
Holy  Three,'  or  ^  the  high  and  lofty  Three,'  but 
never  '  the  Holy  One ;'  that,  in  speaking  of  them- 
selves, the  Holy  Three  are  accustomed  to  the  use 
of  this  language  :  '  We  are  the  God ;  and  besides  us 
there  is  no  God,'  ^  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
5* 


54  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

before  us  ;^  that  there  are  several  thousands  of  pro- 
noims  for  God,  Jehovah,  the  Most  High,  all  of  which 
are  m  the  plural  form,  excepting  three  or  four,  as 
we,  our,  us, — not  /,  7ni/,  me ;  that  all  the  prayers 
and  every  ascription  of  praise,  which  are  found  in 
the  Bible  as  addressed  to  God,  are  addressed  to  the 
Holy  Three,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Now  what  would  be  thought  of  learned 
Clixistians  who  should  treat  all  this  evidence  as  no- 
thing, and  boldly  subscribe  a  creed  which  declares 
that  God  is  one  person  only  ?  Should  we  not  think 
we  had  good  reason  to  say,  that  they  are  remarkably 
blinded  by  their  prejudices?  Suppose  once  more, 
that  these  Christians  should  not  oiily  treat  as  of  no 
weight  such  a  flood  of  evidence  that  God  is  Three, 
but  also  treat  the  believers  in  that  doctrine  as  un- 
worthy of  the  Christian  name ;  would  not  such  con- 
duct not  only  grieve  but  astonish  all  candid  and 
well-informed  men  ? 

"  In  making  these  suppositions,  I  have  only  sup- 
posed the  reverse  of  what  is  in  fact  true,  as  to  the 
evidence  which  the  Bible  affords  that  God  is  but  one 
person.  He  is  thirty  times  styled  '  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel,' — ^not  '  Holy  Ones^ !  ! — many  other  times  he 
is  called  'the  Holy  One,^  or  'the  high  and  lofty  One.^ 
I  shall  therefore  leave  it  to  others  to  estimate  the 
wisdom  and  candor  of  those  who  reject  all  this  evi- 
dence,— subscribe  a  creed  which  declares  God  to  be 
three  distinct  persons,  and  deny  even  the  Christian 
name  to  those  who  believe  that  God  is  but  one 
person.^' 

But,  says  my  opponent's  Confession  of  Faith,  "We 
believe  in  one  God."  Then,  so  far  we  are  agreed. 
He  says,  "We  believe  God  is  unchangeable."  Again 
we  are  agreed.  We  say  that  this  is  one  of  the  most 
important  and  grave  articles  of  our  faith,  that  there 
is  but  one  God.     But  to  this  High  and  Holy  One, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  55 

the  gentleman  adds  three  persons,  and  calls  God  the 
Three-one  God — Triune  God — Trinity,  &c.  AVhere 
has  he  Scripture  for  this?  "He  who  coins  new  words 
coins  new  doctrines."  We  beUeve  in  this  one  God, 
and  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  vSon  of  God — not  that 
God  of  whom  he  is  the  Son,  nor  that  they  are  one  God 
or  Bemg.  Nor  do  we  say  that  Jesus  is  equal  with 
the  Father.  Christ  himself  says — "My  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  If  then  we  say,  there  are  three 
Gods,  do  we  not  contradict  him,  when  he  says 
"  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the 
onli/  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast 
sent?"  Does  not  this  language  utterly  exclude  the 
idea  of  three  co-equal  persons  in  God  ?  Or  that  he 
whom  God  has  sent  as  the  medium  by  whom  we  are 
to  know  the  only  true  God  can  be  equal  with  that 
God  who  sent  him  ?  If  the  man  Christ  Jesus  is  not 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  but  the  supreme 
God,  where  is  the  Infinite  atonement?  Between 
whom  does  he  mediate,  and  by  whose  appointment  ? 
If  Jesus  Christ  died,  can  he  be  that  God  who  raised 
him  ? 

We  believe  that  God  is  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  but  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  of  whom 
he  is  the  Father.  We  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  Son  of  God,  not  "  eternally  begotten,"  but  exist- 
ing in  the  mmd  of  the  Father  from  everlasting.  We 
believe  that  God  made  him  of  the  seed  of  David, 
according  to  the  flesh,  and  "  hath  made  that  same 
Jesus  to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ" — ^the  ^Mediator 
between  God  and  men — the  man  Christ  Jesus.  Can 
we  deny  Christ's  atonement  more  positively  than  by 


56 

insisting  that  he  is  God  ?  Can  you  astound  the  Jews 
more  effectually  than  by  saying  that  the  Messiah 
for  whom  they  look,  is  to  be  their  Jehovah  ?    No  ! 

These  are  briefly  our  views,  and  do  they  justify  the 
gentleman  in  his  endeavor  to  saddle  upon  us  the  ab- 
surd doctrines  of  INIr.  Kinkade — a  man  raised  on  the 
frontiers  and  accustomed  to  preach  with  his  sword 
by  his  side  ?  Many  of  his  views  are  very  gross  and 
differ  widely  from  our  ideas  of  the  Divme  Being. 
We  are  the  followers  of  no  man.  We  are  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  Christ,  and  are  governed  by  no  creed 
but  the  Scriptures.  We  acknowledge  no  names  but 
those  by  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  are  called  in 
the  Word  of  God. 

If  the  Lord  permits  us  to  meet  on  the  morrow,  we 
will  show  you  where  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
originated. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  57 

Wednesday,  10  o'clock,  A.  M. 

MR.  M'CALLA. 

Yesterday  afternoon  I  read  an  address  from  Mr. 
Kinkade,  a  brother  of  my  opponent,  but  of  whom 
he  appears  now  to  be  ashamed.  It  was  an  appeal 
to  the  Christian  church,  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to 
common  sense,  to  show  that  we  do  not  understand 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  This  is  not  the  truth. 
We  do  not  pretend  to  comprehend  the  doctrine  fally, 
and  yet  it  is  far  from  unintelligible.  It  can  be  under- 
stood, though  not  fully  comprehended.  The  Father 
is  God — is  not  that  understood?  The  Son  is  God, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God.  That  is  equally  intel- 
ligible. The  proof  is  plain  that  these  three  are  of 
one  Divine  essence.  The  Bible  is  explicit  on  this 
subject,  for  there  is  neither  name,  act  nor  attribute 
of  the  Godhead,  that  is  not  shared  in  common  by  all 
the  persons  of  the  Trinity.  The  unity  of  the  Trinity 
is  also  proven  by  numerous  passages  of  Scripture. 
This  unity,  considered  in  itself,  is  incomprehensible. 
Angels  themselves  cannot  comprehend  the  Infinite 
Jehovah.  Nor  can  we  comprehend  our  own  na- 
tures. Man  has  a  soul  and  a  mortal  body  !  This  is 
intelligible  but  not  comprehensible — all  about  it  we 
never  shall  understand.  It  is  incomprehensible  to 
all  but  God.  That  Christ  was  manifest  in  the  flesh, 
is  intelligible,  but  the  manner  is  in  some  respects  in- 
comprehensible.— This  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of 


58 

God.  **  Great  is  the  mystery  of  Godliness — God 
manifest  in  the  flesh."  It  is  not  a  "fable,"  how- 
ever, as  this  pamphlet,  distributed  among  you  yester- 
day by  my  opponent,  would  have  you  believe.  He 
says — 

"  Come,  let  it  now  be  understood, 
Can  man  be  God,  or  God  manhood  1 
Can  they  be  one,  and  the  same  being  1 
Yet  one  be  dead,  the  other  living'? 

But  this  a  mystery  is  they  tell, 
Yet  schoolmen  understand  it  well ; 
If  a  mystery  'tis  indeed, 
How  it  is  no  one  can  read." 

To  which  I  answer,  that  no  mystery  can  change 
Deity  into  humanity  or  humanity  into  Deity.  The 
mystery  of  Godliness  is,  that  there  was  an  incompre- 
hensible union  between  a  Divine  person  and  a  hu- 
man soul  and  body,  without  conversion  or  composi- 
tion of  natures  or  confusion  of  persons. 

From  the  earliest  days  to  the  present  time,  the 
Unitarians  have  been  accustomed  to  mysteries  as 
well  as  ourselves ;  only  theirs  was  not  the  mystery 
of  Godliness,  but  the  mystery  of  iniquity,  as  Irenasus 
shows.  "  In  public  (he  says)  they  use  alluring  dis- 
courses, because  of  the  common  Christians,  as  they 
call  those  who  wear  the  Christian  name  in  general ; 
and  to  entice  them  to  come  often,  they  pretend  to 
preach  like  us ;  and  complain  that  though  their  doc- 
trine be  the  same  as  ours,  we  abstain  from  their 
communion,  and  call  them  heretics.  When  they 
have  seduced  any  from  the  faith  by  their  disputes, 
and  made  them  willing  to  comply  with  them,  they 
begin  to  open  their  mysteries." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  59 

This  work  of  Kinkade  is  abhorrent  to  the  pubUc 
mind,  and  these  "Christians'^  wished  to  get  rid  of  it. 
But  it  is  not  all  that  has  been  pubhshed  by  the  So- 
ciety. Lorenzo  D.  Fleming,  another  of  my  oppo- 
nent's brethren,  has  published  a  series  of  letters, 
addressed  to  Elder  Amos  Chase,  a  Baptist  minister, 
and  at  page  18  of  his  pamphlet,  holds  the  following 
language,  viz : — "  In  respect  to  comnumicated  ful- 
ness, or  sufficiency,  we  have  the  following  declara- 
tions : — 'He  whom  God  hath  sent,  speaketh  the  words 
of  God ;  for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure 
unto  him.'  (John  iii.  34.)  'For  it  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  should  all  fulness  dwell.'  (Cor.  i.  19.) 
'In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily.'  (Col.  ii.  9.)  Such  then  has  been  the  plea- 
sure of  God,  in  respect  to  endowing  his  So7i  with 
divine  sufficiency.  And  if  it  hath  pleased  the  Fa- 
ther that  all  fulness  should  dwell  in  his  Son,  we  can 
with  no  more  propriety  set  bounds  to  the  sufficiency 
of  Christ,  than  we  can  to  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head." At  page  31,  he  has  the  following  words, 
viz  : — ■"  That  creatures  were  indeed  said  to  be  of 
God,  because,  not  existing  of  themselves,  they  had 
their  begmning  from  him ;  but  that  the  Son  was 
peculiarly  of  the  Father,  being  of  his  substance  as 
begotten  of  him  !  Now,  if  this  was  the  decision  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  it  is  more  than  I  should  be  Avil- 
ling  to  subscribe  to  myself.  The  whole  amount  of 
the  decision  is,  that  Scripture  testimony  proves  that 
the  Son  was  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father; 
that  is,  that  he  was  peculiarly  the  Father,  being  of 
his  substance  as  begotten  of  him,^^     At  page  28, 


60  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

the  same  writer  uses  the  following  words,  viz : — 
"  We  hold  that  the  Father  is  engaged  to  reconcile 
sinners  to  himself,  through  the  instrumentality  of  his 
Son,  who  is  the  next  greatest  being  in  the  universe 
to  God/' 

In  these  extracts  you  see  these  mysteries  in  the 
doctrme  of  these  Christian  Unitarians.  In  the  first 
extract,  he  attributes  to  Christ  the  Spirit  without 
measure — ^the  fulness  of  the  Godhead — a  divine  suf- 
ficiency— a  sufficiency  as  boundless  as  the  fulness  of 
the  Deity.  In  the  second  extract,  he  tells  us  that 
this  full,  sufficient,  boimdless,  Divine  one,  is  of  the 
same  substance  or  being  with  the  Father,  as  the 
Trinitarian  Council  of  Nice  declares.  And  yet,  in 
the  last  extract,  he  says,  that  his  sect  holds  that 
Christ  is  only  the  next  greatest  being  in  the  universe 
to  God.  This  is  their  mystery — their  fable.  Our 
mystery,  though  incomprehensible,  is  not  contradic- 
tory— theirs  is,  in  one  breath,  with  the  strictest  doc- 
trine of  the  Council  of  Nice,  and,  in  the  next  breath, 
with  the  God-denying  heresy  of  Theodotus  and  my 
opponent.  When  Irenaeus  speaks  of  these  myste- 
ries, he  means  just  such  as  those  of  the  brother  of 
my  opponent.  He  has  one  set  of  sermons  in  one 
pocket,  and  another  in  the  other.  He  has  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  for  Episcopalians  and  Methodists,  Bap- 
tists and  Presbyterians,  and  when  they  are  once 
initiated,  Christ  is  only  the  second  greatest  being — 
that  is,  he  is  infinitely  below  what  the  Bible  repre- 
sents him. 

In  Kinkade,  page  131,  you  have  the  following 
words,  viz : — 


PUBLIC  DEBATE   ON  THE   TRINITY.  61 

^'■'Some  people  contend  that  Christ  is  dependant 
on  God  for  all  he  has,  but  still  they  think  he  is  un- 
created :  they  say  he  is  God's  Son  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word :  that  as  he  derived  his  existence 
from  God,  he  is  therefore  of  the  same  specific  sub- 
stance as  the  Father. 

"  I  believe  that  Barton  W.  Stone,  and  Noah  Wor- 
cester, have  both  advocated  this  sentiment.  I  never 
read  the  second  edition  of  brother  Stone's  address  to 
the  Christian  Church,  nor  his  letters  to  Dr.  Blythe, 
but  I  read  his  letter  to  Moreland,  and  his  letter  to 
Spencer  Clark,  in  both  of  which  he  advocates  the 
doctrine.  I  have  read  none  of  brother  Worcester's 
writings,  except  two  or  three  letters  in  his  Bible 
news,  where  he  attempts  to  prove  that  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God,  in  a  proper  sense  ;  that  is,  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God  in  the  same  sense  that  Isaac  was  the 
Son  of  Abraham." 

Here  you  observe  that  dear  brethren  of  the  Unita- 
rian school,  may  hold  sentiments  exceedingly  differ- 
ent and  contradictory,  absurd  and  blasphemous, 
leading  to  the  Shaker  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of 
the  grossest  denial  of  Christ's  divinity  in  every  sense 
or  degree,  and  yet  sweetly  fraternize  with  each 
other.  "Ever  learning,  and  never  coming  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth."  This  is  their  mystery, 
or  rather  fable,  of  irreconcilables,  the  equal  of  which 
they  will  never  find  among  us. 

At  page  159  of  the  same  book,  he  says — "That 
God  is  a  real  person,  appears  from  the  following 
beautiful  passage  in  Daniel :  '  I  beheld  till  the  thrones 
were  cast  down,  and  the  Ancient  of  Days  did  sit, 
whose  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of 
his  head  like  the  pure  wool,  and  his  throne  was  like 

6 


62  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

fiery  flame,  and  his  wheels  as  burning  fire  !'  And 
same  page,  he  asks — ^  As  the  four  beasts,  the  Son  of 
Man,  and  the  great  multitude  that  stood  before  the 
Ancient  of  Days,  have  shape  and  local  habitations, 
and  as  shape  and  locality  are  as  much  ascribed  to 
him  as  they  are  to  them,  by  what  analogy  are  we 
to  conclude,  that  God  has  no  shape  nor  local  habi- 
tation ? 

"  If  God's  person  fills  all  space,  he  can  have  no 
shape,  because  shape  always  implies  superficies,  and 
that  which  is  unbounded,  has  no  surface.  What- 
ever is  too  subtile  to  have  any  shape,  must  be  qua- 
lity, and  a  quality,  or  attribute  has  no  existence  se- 
parate from  the  being  that  possesses  it,  therefore,  if 
God  is  nothing  but  a  quality,  he  cannot  be  an  agent, 
nor  an  intelligent  being ;  hence  the  conclusion  is  ir- 
resistible, that  if  he  has  no  shape,  he  has  no  real 
existence,  because  the  being  that  exists  in  no  shape, 
exists  not  at  all. 

^'  The  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith  says,  ^  God 
is  without  body,  parts,  or  passions.'  In  my  view 
this  is  equal  to  Atheism  ;  because  if  we  divest  him 
of  these,  there  is  nothing  left  that  would  constitute 
being,  or  that  would  be  perceptible  to  the  mind. 

"  Ears,  hands,  and  eyes  are  parts  of  an  intelligent 
ruler,  and  if  God  has  none  of  these,  he  cannot  hear, 
handle,  nor  see  us.  If  he  is  without  passions,  he 
has  no  mercy,  love,  nor  anger,  and  therefore  cannot 
forgive  us,  love  us,  nor  be  angry  with  us,  because 
if  he  has  not  these  passions,  he  cannot  exercise  them. 
If  it  were  possible  for  the  divine  Being  to  exist  with- 
out body,  parts,  or  passions,  he  would  be  to  us 
neither  desirable,  dreadful,  nor  useful. 

"It  is  only  from  the  Bible  that  we  learn  the 
existence  of  God,  and  that  book  ascribes  to  him 
nearly  all  the  members  of  the  human  body,  and  re- 
presents him  to  be  in  the  shape  of  a  man.     That 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  63 

various  members  of  the  human  body  are  ascribed  to 
him,  appears  from  the  following  texts.  '  The  eyes 
of  the  Lord  are  upon  the  righteous,  and  his  ears  are 
open  unto  their  cry.  The  face  of  tlie  Lord  is  against 
them  that  do  evil.  Psal.  xxxiv.  15,  16.  "  He  shall 
gather  the  lambs  with  his  arm,  and  carry  them  in 
his  bosom."  Isa.  xl.  11.  'I  will  turn  my  hand 
upon  thee."  Isa.  i.  25.  'The  Lord  is  a  man  of  war, 
the  Lord  is  his  name.'  Exod.  xv.  3.  '  And  God  said 
let  us  make  man  in  om'  image,  after  our  likeness.' 
'  So  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image 
of  God  created  he  him.'  Gen.  i.  26,  27. 

"  Some  suppose  that  Being  created  in  the  image 
of  God,  only  means  that  man  was  made  holy ;  but 
I  think  we  should  not  restrict  the  word  to  the  qua- 
lity, it  certainly  extends  to  the  personal  appearance 
of  the  man." 

And  again,  page  166,  he  says,  "  The  text  that  says 
God  measured  the  waters  in  the  hollow  of  his  hand, 
will  go  just  as  far  to  prove  that  water  has  no  real 
existence,  as  it  will  to  prove  that  God  has  no  hand. 
That  the  hands  and  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  sometimes 
mentioned  in  Scripture  to  represent  his  power  and 
wisdom,  is '  no  proof  that  he  has  no  hands  and  eyes  ; 
because  the  hands  of  men  are  sometimes  mentioned 
to  represent  their  power."  This  is  the  book  published 
by  the  "  Cliristians,"  and  distributed ;  and  which 
would  have  been  thrown  about  gratis,  as  was  Mr. 
Plummer's  pamphlet  yesterday,  but  for  the  size  and 
cost  of  the  work.  Real  Christians  have  always  be- 
lieved that  the  true  God  is  without  shape  or  figure. 
The  Pagan  Jupiter  had  a  shape  I  What  is  my  op- 
ponent's creed  on  this  subject  ?  His  brother  Kinkade 
says, "  if  God  has  no  shape,  he  has  no  real  existence, 
because  the  being  that  exists  in  no  shape,  exists  not  at 


64 

all."  Real  Christians  have  always  believed  that  the 
Scriptui'es  apply  head,  hands  and  feet  to  the  Creator, 
in  a  figurative  sense,  and  that  in  reality  he  has  no 
such  members.  Not  so  with  Jove  the  Father  of  the 
Pagans,  nor  with  the  Jupiter  of  my  opponent.  JVIr. 
Kinkade  says  the  Bible  ascribes  to  God  "  nearly  all 
the  'members  of  the  human  body,  and  represents 
hmi  to  be  in  the  shape  of  a  man.'^  "  Ears,  hands 
and  eyes,  (he  says)  are  parts  of  an  intelligent  ruler, 
and  if  God  has  none  of  these,  he  cannot  hear,  handle, 
nor  see  us." 

I  was  forestalled  yesterday  by  my  opponent,  in 
referenca  to  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith.  He 
gave  you  a  few  garbled  extracts,  but  I  have  no 
doubt  would  swallow  the  whole,  if  he  could  seduce 
you  from  your  allegiance  to  Jesus  Christ.  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  says  that  God  is  without  body,  parts, 
or  passions.  This,  according  to  my  opponent's 
friend,  Mr.  Kinkade,  "is  equal  to  Atheism."  "Di- 
vest him  of  these,  (he  says)  and  nothing  is  left  that 
would  constitute  being,  or  that  would  be  perceptible 
to  the  mind."  There  is  the  God  of  these  Unitarians. 
They  have  gone  back  to  genuine  Paganism — Jupiter 
again !  Unitarians  and  "  Christians''^  both  carry  on 
the  same  due  deception,  to  draw  you  from  God  and 
destroy  yoiu:  souls ! 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  65 

MR.  PLUMMER,  after  prayer,  said, 
Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen^ 

We  pledged  ourselves  yesterday,  to  give  you  the 
origin  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  three  persons 
in  one  Divine  essence,  and  to  introduce  some  pas- 
sages in  the  history  of  the  age  in  which  it  was 
brought  into  existence.  I  was  glad  to  hear  the  gentle- 
man aclaiowledge  that  the  doctrine  established  at  the 
Council  of  Nice  was  the  doctrine  for  which  he  is 
now  contending.  If  it  had  its  origin  in  the  Council 
of  Nice,  of  course  it  could  not  have  existed  pre- 
viously. We  have  already  shown  that  the  language 
of  the  Confession  of  Faith  does  not  agree  with  the 
language  of  Scripture.  We  will  now  show  you 
where  the  doctrine  of  this  Confession  of  Faith  ori- 
ginated. 

The  work  to  which  I  shall  call  your  attention,  is 
Jones'  Church  History.  Its  statements  have  never 
been  contradicted  by  any  other  Church  Histoiy. 
According  to  this  historian,  the  sentiments  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  for  the  first  three  centmies, 
were  generally  speaking  pretty  uniform.  But  in  the 
reign  of  Consta.ntine,  a  dispute  arose  which  may  be 
said  to  have  involved  all  Christendom  in  a  flame. 
It  originated  m  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  in  Egypt, 
between  two  pastors  of  that  Church,  Alexander  and 
Arius,  and  soon  spread  into  other  churches,  inflam- 
ing bishops  against  bishops,  who,  under  the  pretext 
of  supporting  Divine  truth,  excited  tumults,  and 
6* 


66  PLUMPER  AND  m'cALLA's 

fomented  the  most  deadly  strifes  and  hatreds  towards 
each  other.     In  a  letter  to  Eusebius,  the  sentiments 
of  Alexander  are  thus  represented  by  Arius  : — "  God 
is  always,  and  the  Son  always — the  same  time  the 
Father,  the  same  time  the  Son — the  Son  co-exists  with 
God  unbegottenly,  being  ever  begotten,  being  mi- 
begottenly  begotten — God  was  not  before  the  Son, 
no,  not  in  conception,  or  the  least  point  of  time,  he 
being  ever  God,  ever  a  Son — for  the  Son  is  out  of 
God  himself."     Alexander,  on  the  other  hand,  re- 
presents the  doctrines  of  Arius  as  equally  absurd. 
Both  thus  leaving  the  plain  language  of  Scripture, 
and  introducing  terms  of  their  own  invention  into  the 
doctrine  of  pure   revelation,  numerous   expedients 
were  tried  to  bring  them  together,  the  Emperor  him- 
self condescending  to  become  a  mediator  between 
them.    But  all  attempts  proved  fruitless,  and  finding 
all  other  recourses  ineffectual,  the  emperor  was  at 
length  under  the  necessity  of  issuing  letters  to  the 
bishops  of  the  several  provinces  of  the  empire,  en- 
joinmg  them  to  assemble  together  at  Nice,  in  Bythmia, 
wiiich  was  accordingly  done,  A.  D.  325.     This  is 
what  goes  by  the  name  of  ''  the  First  General  Coun- 
cil."    The  number  of  bishops  was  three  hundred 
and  eighteen,  besides  a  multitude  of  presbyters,  dea- 
cons, acolythists,  and  others,  amounting  in  the  whole 
to  two  thousand  and  forty -eight  persons.    The  eccle- 
siastical historians  inform  us,  that  in  this  vast  collec- 
tion of  the  bishops,  some  were  remarkable  for  their 
gravity,  patience  under  sufferings,  modesty,  integrity, 
and  eloquence,  yet  they  all  agree  that  there  were 
others  of  very  opposite  characters. 


PUBLIC   DEBATE   ON  THE  TRINITY.  67 

Before  they  entered  upon  the  discussion  of  any- 
thing that  related  to  the  great  object  of  their  meet- 
ing, the  bishops  began  with  complaining  to  the  em- 
peror of  each  other,  and  vindicating  themselves.  He, 
however,  ultimately  succeeded  in  restoring  them  to 
some  degree  of  temper,  and  they  proceeded  in  good 
earnest  to  dr^w  up  a  creed  which  they  were  all  re- 
quired to  subscribe,  as  the  only  true  and  orthodox 
faith,  and  which,  from  the  place  where  they  were 
assembled,  bears  the  title  of  the  "Nicene  Creed." 
^^As  a  matter  of  curiosity,"  says  the  historian,  "I 
subjoin  this  summary  of  the  orthodox  faith  at  this 
period : 

"  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
INIaker  of  all  things,  visible  and  invisible.  And  in 
one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  be- 
gotten ;  begotten  of  the  Father,  that  is,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father.  God  of  God ;  Light  of  Light ; 
true  God  of  true  God ;  begotten,  not  made  ;  consub- 
stantial  with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were 
made,  things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth ;  who 
for  us  men,  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  and 
was  incarnate,  and  became  man,  suifered  and  rose 
again  the  third  day,  and  ascended  into  the  heavens, 
and  comes  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead :  and  in 
the  Holy  Ghost.  And  the  catholic  and  apostolic 
church  doth  anathematize  those  persons  who  say, 
that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was 
not ;  that  he  was  not  before  he  was  born ;  that  he 
was  made  of  nothing,  or  of  another  substance  or 
being ;  or  that  he  is  created,  or  changeable,  or  con- 
vertible." 


68 


"When  these  things  were  ended,  Constantine 
splendidly  treated  the  bishops,  filled  their  pockets, 
and  sent  them  honorably  home,  exhorting  them  at 
parting  to  maintain  peace  among  themselves,  and 
that  none  of  them  should  envy  another  who  might 
excel  the  rest  in  wisdom  or  eloquence — that  they 
should  not  carry  themselves  haughtily  towards  their 
inferiors,  but  condescend  to,  and  bear  with,  their 
weakness ; — a  convincing  proof  that  he  saw  into 
their  tempers,  and  was  no  stranger  to  the  haughti- 
ness and  pride  that  influenced  some,  and  the  envy 
and  hatred  that  prevailed  in  others." 

Fine  characters  to  originate  a  new  system  for  God ! 

"  The  Scriptures  were  now  no  longer  the  standard 
of  the  Christian  faith.  What  Avas  orthodox,  and 
what  heterodox,  was,  from  hence  forward,  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  decisions  of  fathers  and  councils; 
and  religion  propagated,  not  by  the  apostolic  methods 
of  persuasion,  accompanied  with  the  meekness  and 
gentleness  of  Christ,  but  by  imperial  edicts  and  de- 
crees :  nor  were  gainsayers  to  be  brought  to  convic- 
tion by  the  simple  weapons  of  reason  and  Scripture, 
but  persecuted  and  destroyed.  It  cannot  surprise 
us,  if  after  this  we  find  a  continual  fluctuation  of  the 
public  faith,  just  as  the  prevailing  party  obtained 
the  imperial  authority  to  support  them ;  or  that  we 
should  meet  with  little  else  in  ecclesiastical  history 
than  violence  and  cruelties,  committed  by  men  who 
had  wholly  departed  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Chris- 
tian doctrine  and  profession ;  men  enslaved  to  avarice 
and  ambition ;  and  carried  away  with  views  of  tempo- 
ral grandeur,  high  preferments,  and  large  revenues." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  69 

I  would  look  to  the  Bible  several  times  for  a 
creed,  before  I  would  look  to  such  characters. 

"To  dwell  upon  the  disgraceful  cabals,  the  vio- 
lent invectives,  and  slanderous  recriminations  of 
those  ruling  factions,  would  afford  little  edification 
to  the  reader,  and  certainly  no  pleasure  to  the  writer. 
Were  we  disposed  to  give  credit  to  the  complaints 
of  the  orthodox  against  the  Arians,  Ave  must  cer- 
tainly regard  them  as  the  most  execrable  set  of  men 
that  ever  lived.  They  are  loaded  with  all  the  crimes 
that  can  possibly  be  committed,  and  represented  as 
bad,  if  not  worse,  than  infernal  spirits.  And  had  the 
writings  of  the  Arians  not  been  destroyed,  we  should, 
no  doubt,  have  found  as  many  and  grievous  charges 
laid  by  them,  perhaps  with  equal  justice,  against  the 
Athanasians.  Constantius  banished  Athanasius  from 
his  bishopric  at  Alexandria,  and  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
citizens,  in  which  he  terms  him  'an  impostor,  a 
corrupter  of  men's  souls,  a  disturber  of  the  city,  a 
pernicious  fellow,  one  convicted  of  the  worst  crimes, 
not  to  be  expiated  by  his  suffering  death  ten  times f 
and  a  bishop,  named  George,  was  put  into  his  see, 
whom  this  eloquent  emperor  is  pleased  to  style  *  a 
most  venerable  person,  and  the  most  capable  of  all 
men  to  instruct  them  in  heavenly  things.'  Athana- 
sius, however,  in  his  usual  style,  calls  him  '  an  idola- 
ter and  hangman ;  and  one  capable  of  all  kinds  of 
violence,  rapine,  and  murders ;'  and  whom  he  actu- 
ally charges  with  committing  the  most  impious 
actions  and  outrageous  cruelties. 

"The  truth  is,  that  the  clergy  of  the  Catholic 
church  were  now  become  the  principal  disturbers  of 


70  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA^S 

the  empire ;  and  the  pride  of  the  bishops,  and  the  fury 
of  the  people  on  each  side  had  grown  to  such  a 
height,  that  the  election  or  restoration  of  a  bishop 
seldom  took  place  in  the  larger  cities,  without  being 
attended  with  scenes  of  slaughter.  Athanasius  was 
several  times  banished  and  restored  at  the  expense 
of  blood.  What  shall  we  make  of  the  Christianity 
of  the  man  who  could  act  thus,  or  countenance  such 
proceedings  ?  Had  Athanasius  been  influenced  by 
the  benign  and  peaceable  spirit  of  the  gospel,  he 
would  at  once  have  withdrawn  himself  from  such 
disgraceful  scenes,  and  preferred  to  worship  God  in 
the  society  of  only  a  dozen  day-laborers  in  a  cellar 
or  a  garret,  to  all  the  honor  and  all  the  emolument 
which  he  could  derive  from  being  exalted  to  the  dig- 
nity of  archbishop  of  Alexandria,  on  such  degrading 
conditions.  One  can  scarcely  forbear  contrasting  his 
conduct  with  the  behaviour  of  Him,  whose  servant 
he  professed  to  be.  'When  Jesus  perceived  that 
they  would  come  and  take  him  by  force,  and  make 
him  a  king,  he  departed  again  into  a  mountain 
alone.^  John  vi.  15.  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are 
not  turbulence  and  strife ;  '  but  love,  joy,  peace, 
long-suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  fidelity,  meek- 
ness and  temperance ;  and  they  that  are  Christ's 
have  crucified  the  flesh  with  its  affections  and  lusts.' 
Gal.  V.  22.'' 

I  think  our  dearly  beloved  brother  Pierpont  will 
get  into  Heaven,  if  he  possess  all  these  virtues,  even 
if  he  is  mistaken  on  one  point — but  it  remams  to  be 
proven  that  he  is  mistaken. 

"The  orthgdox  were   deposed,  and  the   Arians 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  71 

substituted  in  their  places,  with  the  murder  of  thou- 
sands ;  and  as  the  controversy  was  now  no  longer 
about  the  plain  doctrines  of  uncorrupted  Christianity, 
but  about  secular  honors  and  dignified  preferments, 
so  the  bishops  were  introduced  into  their  churches 
and  placed  upon  their  thrones  by  armed  soldiers. 
And  when  once  m  actual  possession,  they  treated 
those  who  differed  from  them  without  moderation 
or  mercy,  turning  them  out  of  their  churches,  deny- 
ing them  the  liberty  of  worship,  fulminating  anathe- 
mas against  them,  and  persecuting  them  by  every 
species  of  cruelty,  as  is  evident  from  the  accounts 
given  by  the  ecclesiastical  historians  of  Athanasius, 
Macedonius,  George,  and  others.  In  short,  they 
seem  to  have  treated  one  another  with  the  same  im- 
placable bitterness  and  severity,  as  their  common 
enemies,  the  heathen,  had  ever  exercised  towards 
them,  or  as  though  they  thought  persecution  for  con- 
science-sake had  been  the  distinguishing  character- 
istic of  the  Christian  religion,  and  that  they  could 
not  more  effectually  recommend  themselves  as  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  than  by  devouring  each  other." 

Conscience-sake — don't  forget  that ! 

"  This  made  Julian,  the  emperor,  say  of  them,  that 
he  found  by  experience,  that  even  the  beasts  of  the 
forest  are  not  so  cruel  as  the  generality  of  Christians 
then  were  to  one  another.  Such  was  the  wretched 
state  of  things  in  the  reign  of  Constantius,  which 
affords  us  little  more  than  the  history  of  councils  and 
creeds  differing  from,  and  clashing  with  each  other 
— bishops  deposing,  censuring,  and  anathematizing 
their  adversaries,  and  the  people  divided  into  factions 


72  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

under  their  respective  leaders,  for  the  sake  of  words, 
of  the  meaning  of  which  they  understood  nothing, 
and  contending  for  victory  even  imto  bloodshed  and 
death.  Thus,  as  Socrates  observes, '  was  the  church 
torn  in  pieces  for  the  sake  of  Athanasius  and  the 
word  consubstantial!^  ^' 

Athanasius  and  consubstantial ! — just  as  much 
sense  in  this,  as  in  quarrelling  about  the  term  three 
persons  in  one  essence.  "Let  them  alone,  then," 
says  one.  We  will,  when  we  are  allowed  to  ex- 
press our  sentiments  in  Bible  language,  without 
being  denounced  as  "  God-denying  heretics." 

"  It  probably  would  not  be  easy  to  sketch  in  a 
few  words  a  more  striking  picture  of  these  times 
than  that  which  is  given  us  by  Ammianus  Marcelli- 
nus,  Avho,  having  served  in  the  armies,  had  the  best 
opportunities  of  studying  the  character  of  Constan- 
tius.  '  The  Christian  religion,  which  in  itself,'  says 
he,  '  is  plain  and  simple,  he  confounded  by  the  do- 
tage of  superstition.  Instead  of  reconciling  the  par- 
ties by  the  weight  of  his  authority,  he  cherished  and 
propagated  by  verbal  disputes,  the  differences  which 
his  vain  curiosity  had  excited.  The  highways  ivere 
covered  with  troops  of  bishops,  galloping  f7'0'm 
every  side  to  the  assemblies,  which  they  called 
synods;  and  while  they  labored  to  reduce  the  whole 
sect  to  their  own  particular  opinions,  the  public  esta- 
blishment of  the  posts  was  almost  ruined  by  their 
hasty  and  repeated  journeys.'  It  was  certainly  a 
very  just,  though  severe  censure,  which  Gregory 
Nazianzen  passed  upon  the  councils  that  were  held 
about  this  time.     ^  If  I  must  speak  the  truth,'  says 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  73 

he,  ^  this  is  my  resolution,  to  avoid  all  councils  of  the 
bishops,  for  I  have  not  seen  any  good  end  answered 
by  any  synod  whatsoever ;  for  their  love  of  conten- 
tion, and  their  lust  of  power,  are  too  great  even  for 
words  to  express.^  The  scepticism  of  Gibbon  has 
subjected  him  to  an  unmeasurable  effusion  of  ran- 
cour from  the  clergy  of  his  day ;  and  far  be  it  from 
me  to  stand  forward  the  advocate  of  scepticism  in 
any  man ;  but  I  most  cordially  agree  with  that  emi- 
nent writer,  when  he  says,  '  the  patient  and  humble 
virtues  of  Jesus  should  not  be  confounded  with  the 
intolerant  zeal  of  princes  and  bishops,  who  have  dis- 
graced the  name  of  his  disciples.' 

"  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  a  Roman  historian,  who 
lived  during  these  times,  adverting  to  this  subject, 
says,  '  It  was  no  wonder  to  see  those  who  were  am- 
bitious of  hmnan  greatness,  contending  with  so  much 
heat  and  animosity  for  that  dignity,  because  when 
they  had  obtained  it,  they  were  sure  to  be  enriched 
by  the  offerings  of  the  matrons,  of  appearing  abroad 
in  great  splendor,  of  being  admhed  for  their  costly 
coaches,  sumptuous  in  their  feasts,  out-doing  sove- 
reign princes  in  the  expenses  of  their  table.'  This 
led  Proetextatus,  an  heathen,  who  was  praefect  of  the 
city,  to  say, '  Make  me  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  Fll  be 
a  Christian  too!''' 

Speaking  of  the  brothers  Valentinian  and  Valens, 
who  succeeded  to  the  throne  of  the  empire  in  364, 
the  historian  says  : — 

"  The  two  emperors  were  of  very  different  tem- 
pers, and  took  different  courses  in  regard  to  religion. 
The  former  was  of  the  orthodox  party ;  but  though 

7 


74 

he  especially  favored  those  of  his  own  sentiments, 
he  gave  no  disturbance  to  the  Arians.  Valens,  on 
the  contrary,  was  less  hberal  in  his  views,  and  per- 
secuted all  who  differed  from  him.  In  the  beginning 
of  their  reign,  a  synod  was  convened  in  Illyricum, 
which  again  decreed  the  consubstantiality  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit.  The  emperors  issued  a  circular 
letter,  declaring  their  assent  to  this,  and  ordering  that 
this  doctrine  should  be  preached — though  they  pub- 
lished laws  for  the  toleration  of  all  religious  denomi- 
nations, and  even  of  Paganism.  In  the  year  375, 
Valentinian  died  suddenly  m  a  transport  of  rage, 
and  Valens  being  sole  emperor,  was  soon  prevailed 
on  by  the  artifice  of  Eudoxius,  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, to  take  a  decided  part  with  the  Arians,  and  to 
abandon  his  moderation,  by  cruelly  persecuting  the 
Orthodox.  The  first  thing  that  fired  his  resentment 
was  the  conduct  of  these  latter,  who  had  solicited  and 
obtained  his  permission  to  hold  a  synod  at  Lampsa- 
cus,  for  the  amendment  and  settlement  of  the  faith ; 
when,  after  two  months'  consultation,  they  decreed 
the  doctrine  of  the  Son's  being  like  the  Father  as  to 
his  essence,  to  be  the  true  orthodox  faith,  and  de- 
posed all  the  bishops  of  the  Arian  party.  This 
highly  exasperated  Valens,  who,  without  delay, 
convened  a  council  of  the  Arian  bishops,  and  in  his 
turn,  commanded  the  bishops  who  composed  the 
synod  of  Lampsacus  to  embrace  the  sentiments  of 
Eudoxius  the  Arian :  and  upon  their  refusal,  sent 
them  into  exile,  transferring  their  churches  to  their 
opponents.  After  this,  he  pursued  measures  still 
more  violent  against  them :  some  were  commanded 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  75 

to  be  whipped,  others  disgraced,  not  a  few  impri- 
soned, and  many  fined. 

"  After  having  reigned  fourteen  years,  Valens  lost 
his  hfe  in  a  battle  with  the  Goths,  A.  D.  378,  and 
was  succeeded  in  the  government  of  the  empire  by 
Gratian,  the  son  of  Valentinian.  He  was  of  the 
orthodox  party;  and  after  the  death  of  his  uncle 
Valens,  he  recalled  those  that  had  been  banished — 
restored  them  to  their  sees,  and  sent  Sapores,  one  of 
his  captams,  to  drive  the  Arians,  like  wild  beasts, 
out  of  all  their  churches.  This  emperor,  soon  after 
his  accession  to  power,  miited  with  himself  as  col- 
league in  the  government, '  the  great  Theodosius,  a 
name  celebrated  in  history,  and  dear  to  the  Catholic 
church.' 

"  Immediately  on  his  advancement  to  the  throne 
of  the  empire,  Theodosius  betrayed  a  warm  zeal  for 
the  orthodox  opinions.  Hearing  that  the  city  of 
Constantinople  was  divided  into  different  religious 
parties,  he  wrote  a  letter  to  them  from  Thessa- 
lonica,  wherein  he  acquaints  them,  that  'it  was 
his  pleasure,  that  all  his  subjects  should  be  of 
the  same  religious  profession  with  Damasus,  bishop 
of  Rome,  and  Peter,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  that 
their  church  alone  should  be  denominated  ^  Catholic,' 
who  v/orshipped  the  divine  Trmity  as  equal  in  ho- 
nor, and  that  those  who  were  of  another  opinion 
should  be  called  heretics,  become  infamous,  and  be 
liable  to  other  punishments.'  And  on  his  arrival  in 
the  imperial  city,  he  sent  for  Demophilus,  the  Arian 
bishop,  demanding  to  know  whether  he  would  sub- 
scribe the  Nicene  confession  of  faith,  adding, '  if  you 


76 

refuse  to  do  it,  I  will  drive  you  from  your  churches ;' 
and  he  kept  his  word,  for  he  turned  him  and  all  the 
Arians  out  of  the  city. 

"  The  more  effectually  to  extinguish  heresy,  he,  in 
the  year  383,  summoned  a  council  of  bishops  of  his 
own  persuasion  to  meet  at  Constantinople,  in  order 
to  confirm  the  Nicene  faith;  the  number  of  them 
amounted  to  an  hundred  and  fifty,  to  which  may  be 
added,  thirty-six  of  the  Macedonian  party.  This  is 
commonly  termed  the  second  Oecumenical  or  gene- 
ral council.  They  decreed  that  the  Nicene  faith 
should  be  the  standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  that  all 
heresies  should  be  condemned." 

Thus  have  I  redeemed  my  pledge,  given  to  you 
yesterday.  Here  is  where  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
had  its  origin — ^not  the  origin  of  the  doctrine  of  one 
God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men — the 
INIan  Christ  Jesus — but  of  the  heresies  which  sprang 
up  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  77 


MR.  M'CALLA. 

My  opponent  has  gone  on  to  prove  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  origmated  in  the  Council  of 
Nice.  He  has  endeavored  to  give  you  the  impres- 
sion that  I  have  admitted  this.  My  conscience 
would  not  allow  me  so  to  misrepresent  him.  I  said 
that  the  rejection  of  Christ's  divinity  was  called  by 
the  ancient  Ciiristians  the  "  God-denying  heresy." 
The  Christian  church  has  always  believed  the  Fa- 
ther divine,  the  Son  divine,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
divine. 

The  work  to  which  my  opponent  has  referred, 
was  written  by  a  Baptist,  and  Avith  the  view  of 
communicating  information  to  those  whose  views  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ,  comcide  pretty  much  with  his 
own.  I  have  always  been  very  much  disposed  to 
lean  towards  these  old  fathers,  but  my  confidence 
of  late  years  has  been  much  weakened  in  their  in- 
fallibility. Mr.  Jones  sometimes  appears  to  be  a  lit- 
tle virulent  in  his  remarks,  but  the  more  I  reflect,  the 
more  I  am  disposed  to  like  him.  Mr.  Isaac  Taylor, 
of  England,  has  also  written  a  sound  work  m  rela- 
tion to  these  old  fathers,  which  makes  me  blush  for 
human  nature.  There  was  evidently  too  much  cor- 
ruption among  them.  We  do  not  pretend  to  hold 
them  up  as  infallible,  nor  can  we  worship  them  as 
Gods,  though  they  might  do  for  Mr.  Kinkade's  or  my 
opponent's  God. 

I  have  come  here  to  defend  the  cause  of  my  Di- 
7* 


78  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

vine  Master,  and  not  to  excuse  the  corruption,  ambi- 
tion, nor  avarice  of  the  ancient  Fathers.  "  Our  dear 
brother  Pierpont,"  or  Dr.  Chamiing,  might  agree 
very  well  with  these  fathers,  so  far  as  they  held  to  Pa- 
gan corruptions,  and  so  might  their  brother  Gannett. 
"Brother  Gannett"  travelled  in  England  and  Scot- 
land, and  heard  clergymen  of  all  sorts  and  sizes.  On 
his  return,  he  published  a  bo'6k,  telling  all  he  had 
heard  and  seen,  and  how  the  bigotry  he  had  wit- 
nessed among  Trinitarians,  made  him  long  for  Pagan 
instruction.  It  is  wonderful  that  he  did  not  send  to 
India  for  a  Brahmin.  Though  if  he  will  only  read 
Kmkade,  or  Mr.  Plmmner's  pamphlet,  he  will  get 
enough  of  Pagan  instruction  without  sending  to 
India. 

My  opponent  says,  "  Give  us  Bible  language ! 
Avoid  a  Comicil  of  Bishops  !"  So  say  I.  But  he 
evidently  does  not  understand  the  matter  which  he 
has  attempted  to  explain.  The  Trinitarians  and 
"  Christians"  of  that  age,  agreed  no  better  than  they 
do  at  present.  Hence  arose  a  dispute,  known  as  the 
"Arian  Controversy."  Alexander  affirmed  "an 
unity  in  the  Trinity,  and  particularly  that  the  Son 
was  co-eternal,  and  con-substantial,  and  of  the  same 
dignity  with  the  Father."  Arius  objected  to  this 
language,  "  that  if  the  Father  begat  the  Son,  he  who 
was  begotten  must  have  a  beginning  of  existence ;" 
and  from  hence,  says  he,  "  'tis  manifest  there  was  a 
time  when  he  (the  Son)  was  not."  This  was  the 
ancient  heresy.  But  our  modem  Christians  have 
improved  on  the  doctrine  of  their  ancient  brethren. 
Mr.  Kinkade,  at  page  162  of  his  book,  says, — 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  79 

"  Paul  says,  he  (Christ)  is  the  brightness  of  his  Fa- 
ther's glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person 
(Greek  hupostaseos,  substance.)  This  text  shows 
beyond  doubt  that  God's  person  or  substance  is  in 
the  sliape  of  a  man.  It  does  not  say,  that  he  was 
the  image  of  God's  mortal  perfections,  but  it  says  he 
was  the  express  image  of  his  person.  Heb.  i.  3. 
Paul  to  the  Collossians,  says  of  Christ,  that  he  is  the 
image  of  the  mvisible  God.  Col.  i.  15.  God's  moral 
perfections  have  been  revealed,  and  are  visible  to 
every  believer,  therefore  it  must  be  his  person,  that 
is  called  the  invisible  God,  then  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
image  or  shape  of  that  person. 

"  Paul  says :  '  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was 
also  in  Christ  Jesus  :  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.'  Philip. 
ii.  5,  6.  Form  is  distinct  from  quality,  and  always 
relates  to  arrangement  or  shape.  This  shows  that 
Christ  was  in  the  form,  or  shape  of  God,  before  he 
emptied  himself  of  that  glory  he  had  with  the  Fa- 
ther in  his  pre-existent  state.  And  we  all  know  that 
in  all  his  early  appearances  to  the  patriarchs,  and 
prophets,  he  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  man,  and 
was  frequently  called  a  man.  If  he  was  in  the  form 
of  God,  and  that  form  was  the  shape  of  a  man,  then 
God  is  in  the  shape  of  a  man." 

This  is  the  new  paganism.  He  does  not  even  attri- 
bute a  soul  to  God  !  He  makes  him  the  mere  image 
of  an  old  soldier,  set  up  to  draw  you  back  to  Pagan 
darkness.  He  is  not  satisfied  with  going  back  to  the 
old  fathers.  And  this  is  the  Paganism  after  which 
Brother  Gannett  longed. 

At  page  133,  Kinkade  says:  "I  think  Christ  is  a 
created  Being,  and  those  passages  that  say  he  was  be- 
gotten always  allude  either  to  his  miraculous  concep- 
tion, or  his  resurrection  from  the  dead.     The  word 


80 

begotten,  in  its  proper  sense,  that  is,  according  to 
the  common  acceptation  of  the  term,  imphes  phira- 
hty ;  to  beget,  is  the  united  act  of  two :  there- 
fore the  pre-existent  Christ  could  not  haA^e  been  be- 
gotten in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  unless  he 
had  a  mother  as  w^ell  as  a  father." 

The  Christian  Church  has  always  believed  that 
the  divine  Father  had  a  divine  Son,  co-essential,  co- 
eternal,  and  co-equal  with  the  Father,  without  the 
intervention  of  any  mother,  human  or  divine.  But 
when  Jupiter  is  the  Father  of  a  Pagan  God,  they 
assign  to  him  a  divine  mother,  and  when  he  is  the 
Father  of  a  Demi-God,  it  is  by  a  human  mother.  So 
my  opponent's  brother,  Mr.  Kinkade,  says  :  "  Christ 
could  not  have  been  begotten,  in  the  proper  sense  of 
the  word,- unless  he  had  a  mother  as  well  as  a 
Father." 

At  page  163,  Kinkade  says  :  "  I  will  now  attempt 
to  answer  the  principal  objections  that  I  have  heard 
agamst  the  personal,  or  real  existence  of  God. 

"  Objection  1.  If  we  worship  God  ascribing  to  him 
the  human  shape,  shall  we  not  violate  the  second 
commandment  which  forbids  us  to  make  and  worship 
any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  ? 

"  Answer.  It  can  break  no  commandment  of  God 
to  believe  on,  and  worship  him,  as  he  has  revealed 
himself  to  us  in  his  word :  and  although  we  ascribe 
to  God  the  shape  of  a  man,  still  he  is  not  the  image 
of  a  man,  but  man  is  the  image  of  him,  and  God  is 
the  prototype ;  besides  we  do  not  make  this  image, 
it  is  formed  in  our  minds  by  the  holy  scripture,  and 
believing  the  Bible  is  not  making  nor  worshipmg 
graven  images." 

Here  you  have  popery  in  its  worst  form — only 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  81 

Mr.  Kinkade  makes  God  a  bodily  image,  and  the  pa- 
pists make  an  image  of  God. 

"  Objection  2.  Christ  speaking  of  his  Father,  says: 
<  Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  nor 
seen  his  shape.'     John  v.  37. 

"  Answer,  Some  of  the  best  critics  read  this  in  the 
shape  of  a  question,  thus :  '  Have  you  not  heard  his 
voice,  and  seen  his  shape  V  I  think  it  is  probable 
that  this  is  the  true  reading,  because  the  multitude 
did  hear  the  Father's  voice  when  his  Son  was  bap- 
tized, and  as  they  had  all  seen  Christ,  who  was  the 
express  image  of  his  person,  they  must  have  seen 
his  shape.  But  if  the  common  reading  is  correct, 
this  text  shows  as  plainly  that  God  has  a  shape,  as 
that  he  has  a  voice.  If  it  will  prove  that  he  has  no 
shape,  it  will  prove  that  he  has  no  voice. 

"  Objection  3.  God  is  a  spirit,  and  how  shall  we, 
consistently  with  truth,  ascribe  shape  to  a  spirit  ? 

"  Jinswer.  All  the  spirits  that  the  scripture  gives 
an  account  of  being  seen,  were  seen  in  the  shape  of 
men. 

In  the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Judges,  we  have  an 
account  of  an  angel,  that  appeared  to  Manoah  and 
his  wife,  in  the  shape  of  a  man,  and  they  called  him 
a  man,  but  when  they  offered  a  biu:nt  offering,  and 
the  flame  went  up  towards  heaven  from  off  the  al- 
tar, he  ascended  up  with  the  flame  of  the  altar.  In 
the  sixth  chapter  of  Judges,  we  have  an  accoimt  of 
an  angel  that  appeared  to  Gideon  in  the  shape  of  a 
man,  who  is  also  called  the  Lord. 

"The  fourth  person  that  was  seen  walking  with  the 
three  children  in  the  midst  of  the  fiery  furnace,  was, 
no  doubt,  a  spirit,  yet  he  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a 
man.  After  the  rich  man's  body  was  buried,  he  is 
represented  as  a  man  lifting  up  his  eyes  in  torment. 
— There  appeared  two  men,  which  were  Moses  and 
Elias,  talking  with  Christ  in  the  Mount.  Moses' 
body  had  not  then  been  raised  from  the  dead,  yet 


82  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Moses  was  a  man.  When  the  disciples  saw  Christ 
walking  on  the  water  they  thought  they  had  seen  a 
spirit.  On  another  occasion  he  said :  '  Handle  me, 
and  see,  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye 
see  me  have.'  Luke  xxiv.  39.  It  is  plain  from  these 
texts,  that  the  difference  between  the  people  in  the 
spiritual,  and  natural  world,  is  not  in  shape.  If  the 
Saints  in  heaven  exist,  they  must  exist  in  some 
shape,  and  no  doubt  but  that  it  is  the  human  shape. 
We  read  of  men  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  under  the 
earth.     Rev.  v.  3.'' 

Here  he  evidently  insists  upon  the  material  form 
of  his  Deity  and  of  all  spirits,  so  that  he  has  no  im- 
material being — no  real  spirit,created  nor  uncreated. 
With  liim  the  Spirit  of  Men  and  created  spiritual 
angels,  are  all  like  his  God,  possessed  of  body,  parts 
and  passions.  This  is  as  genuine  paganism  as  can  be 
found.  It  is  real  Materialism  and  Atheism,  and  his 
supporter  finds  here  all  that  his  former  Atheistical 
patron,  Mr.  Kneeland,  could  have  professed. 

These  Christians  do  not  really  believe  m  a  Spirit 
more  than  did  the  Sadducees — neither  the  Spirit  of 
God,  the  Spirit  of  a  Man,  nor  the  Spirit  of  an  angel. 

I  spent  several  days  in  listenmg  to  a  Unitarian, 
mitil  he  satisfied  me  that  he  was  an  Atheist.  He 
lifted  his  hands  and  swore  that  he  believed  in  a  God, 
and  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  I  knew 
then  that  he  spoke  falsely.  He  subsequently  became 
a  disciple  of  Fanny  Wright,  and  embraced  her  doc- 
trines. Another  of  these  Christians,  to  prove  that 
he  is  not  an  Atheist,  has  spent  a  long  time  in  prayer. 
I  never  could  defile  my  conscience  by  giving  the 
least  countenance  to  infidehty.     The  ancient  fathers 


PUBLIC  DEBATE   ON  THE  TRINITY.  S3 

suffered  martyi'dom  because  they  would  not.  I  saw 
another  man,  under  whom  the  Unitarians  rally  in 
Philadelphia,  supporting  that  Atheist.  He  has  been 
brought  here — has  sought  "  Christian'^  shelter,  and 
has  fomid  protection  under  the  wings  of  my  op- 
ponent. The  sympathy  between  Atheists  and  these 
Unitarians  is  really  surprismg.  This  is  not  the  first 
time  it  has  been  manifested.  In  another  place,  Mv. 
Campbell,  who  agrees  in  sentiment  with  my  op- 
ponent, challenged  Robert  Owen  to  a  public  discus- 
sion, and  triumphed.  Sometime  afterward,  Owen 
was  visiting  that  part  of  Virginia  in  which  My. 
Campbell  resided,  and  could  not  pass  without  spend- 
ing a  few  days  with  dear  brother  Campbell !  Mr. 
Owen  subsequently  declared  that  they  were  among 
the  happiest  days  of  his  life.  It  is  always  so  when 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord  is  denied.  Dr.  Priestly 
once  heard  some  one  say  that  Jefferson  was  an  in- 
fidel. "Is  he?"  said  he — "then  he  is  not  far  from 
us!" 

These  are  some  of  the  enormities  of  a  Society  call- 
ing themselves  Unitarians  or  ••  Christians."  They 
are  the  very  opposite  of  the  Christians  of  Antioch, 
who  suffered  martyrdom  rather  than  worship  Jupi- 
ter. They  have  an  evident  affinity  for  Jews,  Moham- 
medans and  Heathen.  The  Pagans  vv^orship  a  77ia- 
t cried  God — so  do  the  Christians.  The  Pagans 
worship  a  God  of  body,  parts,  and  passions — so  do 
the  Christians.  The  Pagans  worship  a  God  pos- 
sessed of  all  the  members  of  the  human  body — 
and  the  Christians  have  a  Jupiter  possessed  of 
nearly  all  the  members  of  the  human  body.     How 


84  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

different  this  heathenish  stuff  from  the  views  of  real 
Christians,  who  worship  a  spiritual  Father,  possesed 
of  no  body,  parts  nor  passions,  shape  nor  members, 
and  having  an  eternal,  equal,  and  co-essential  Son, 
without  a  mother  to  his  divine  nature,  and  without 
a  human  father  to  that  human  nature  which  he  took 
into  union  with  the  divine,  that  he  might  atone  for 
the  sins  of  his  people. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  85 

MR.  PLUMMER. 
Mr.  Chairman, 

I  must  be  allowed  to  correct  some  of  the  gentle- 
man's insinuations.  I  suppose  he  alludes  to  Mr. 
Kneeland.  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  say  that 
we  have  never  had  any  conununication  nor  con- 
nexion whatever  with  Mr.  Kneeland,  nor  any  other 
sceptic. 

I  think  the  gentleman  ought  to  be  grateful  to  Mr. 
Kinkade,  for  had  it  not  been  for  the  assistance  ren- 
dered by  his  book  he  would  have  stranded  before 
the  close  of  his  last  speech.  Mr.  Kinkade  claimed 
for  himself  to  be  half-savage — a  soldier — as  does  my 
old  friend  Mr.  M'Calla.  His  doctrine  has  been  dis- 
countenanced by  me  and  by  our  friends  as  gross  and 
absurd.  We  have  always  believed  that  we  are  for- 
bidden to  fashion  God  into  the  image  or  likeness  of 
any  thmg  in  the  heavens  above  or  the  earth  be- 
neath,— that  he  fills  immensity — a  Spirit,  infinite, 
invisible  and  unchangeable.  The  gentleman  is  so 
troubled  to  identify  us  with  Kinkade,  that  he  can't 
get  the  book  out  of  his  mind.  In  his  account  of  his 
recent  journey  to  Texas,  he  has  gone  quite  as  far  out 
of  his  way  to  bring  in  and  bespatter  some  of  the 
clergyman  of  his  own  denomination. 

It  would  be  very  easy  for  me  to  retort  on  the  gen- 
tleman, and  prove  that  he  is  an  Atheist  from  his  own 
showing. 


86  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLa's 

Says  one,  "  This  is  a  very  bold  assertion  !"  He 
positively  affirmed  in  our  meeting-house,  in  referring 
to  the  doctrine  of  Kinkade,  that  any  one  who  would 
attach  a  body,  or  a  human  form  to  God,  was  an  Athe- 
ist. And  yet  he  said,  in  the  same  discom'se,  that  if 
any  body  should  deny  that  God  took  human  nature 
into  union  with  the  divine,  so  that  they  became 
mysteriously  united  in  one  person,  so  that  the  di- 
vinity sustained  the  humanity,  in  dying  for  our 
sins,  they  would  deny  the  mfinite  atonement.  Now 
his  creed  also  declares  that  the  very  and  eternal  God 
did  take  upon  him  man's  nature,  and  all  the  essential 
properties  and  common  infirmities  thereof,  yet  with- 
out sin — so  that  two  whole,  perfect  and  distmct 
natures,  the  Godiiead  and  the  manhood,  were  in- 
separably joined  together  in  one  person,  without 
conversion,  composition,  or  confusion,  which  person 
is  very  God  and  very  man."  Thus  he  declares, 
that  God  is  "very  God"  and  '''very  man,"  and  yet 
that  he  v/ho  so  unites  man  to  God  is  an  Atheist ! 
Let  him  now  define  his  position.  He  will  have 
enough  to  do  to  extricate  himself  from  this  dilemma, 
without  farther  troubling  Kuikade. 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  says — "The 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are 
the  word  of  God — the  only  rule  of  Faith  and  obe- 
dience. The  Scriptures  make  known  what  God  is, 
the  persons  in  the  Godhead,  his  decrees,  and  the 
execution  of  his  decrees, — God  is  a  Spirit,  in  and  of 
himself  infinite  in  being,  glory,  blessedness,  and  per- 
fection ;  all-sufficient,  eternal,  unchangeable,  incom- 
prehensible, every  where  present,  almighty,  knowing 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  87 

all  things,  most  wise,  most  holy,  most  just,  most 
merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffermg,  and  abundant 
in  goodness  and  truth.  There  is  but  one,  only,  the 
living  and  true  God.  (Agreed.)  There  be  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one  true  eternal 
God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and 
glory ;  although  distinguished  by  their  personal  pro- 
perties. It  is  proper  to  the  Father  to  beget  the  Son, 
and  to  the  Son  to  be  begotten  of  the  Father,  and  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  proceed  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  from  all  eternity." 

The  sum  of  our  offending  is,  that  we  contend  for 
but  one  God — and  for  one  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  Father  in  truth  and  love — begotten,  not  the  Fa- 
ther he  is  begotten  of. 

Is  there  a  true  Christian,  one  who  loves  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  supposes  that  when  we  speak  of 
him  as  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  referred  to  as  one  begot- 
ten as  we  are  begotten?  that  God  is  begetting  children 
in  any  other  way  than  by  his  word  and  Spirit  ?  But 
here  we  have  "  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  equal  and  eternal  with  God  the  Father." 
How  many  Gods  shall  we  have  if  we  admit  there 
are  more  eternals  than  one.  By  what  authority  does 
the  gentleman  limit  the  number  to  three  ?  If  there  are 
three  eternals,  are  there  not  three  divine  essences  ? 
The  gentleman  affirms  that  there  are  three  divine 
persons  in  the  divme  essence  !  Then  are  there  not 
nine  persons  in  the  three  divine  essences  ?  If  the 
gentleman  can  thus  manufacture  Gods,  would  he 
not  have  made  an  admirable  bishop  galloping  off  to 


88 

Synods  and  Councils,  to  manufacture  Creeds  and 
Confessions  of  Faith  ? 

He  has  said  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  in- 
comprehensible, and  yet  understood  !  Have  we  not 
as  much  benefit  from  that  creed  which  is  incompre- 
hensible, who  have  no  faith  in  it,  as  they  have 
who  profess  to  have  all  faith  in  it  ?  How  much 
can  they  understand  of  what  they  do  not  mider- 
stand  at  all  ? 

The  gentleman  and  ourselves  stand  on  very  differ- 
ent gromid.  This  Bible  is  our  Confession  of  Faith. 
We  commenced  reading  it,  with  prayer,  more  than 
thirty  years  ago.  Here  is  the  gentleman's  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  But,  say  you,  he  subscribes  to  the 
Bible  also  !  Well,  then,  we  are  so  far  agreed  !  But 
he  adds  tliis  Confession  of  Faith.  But,  says  the  gen- 
tleman, holding  up  Kinkade  and  this  little  sheet, 
these  are  "your  Confessions  of  Faith  !"  This  is  not 
true.  We  are  no  more  accountable  for  the  senti- 
ments of  Kinkade,  than  he  is  for  those  of  Mr.  Barnes 
or  Professor  Stuart.  But  his  Confession  is  authori- 
tative, and  binding  on  his  brethren.  We  attach  no 
authority  to  the  private  sentiments  of  any  man.  This 
we  wish  the  gentleman  to  understand,  and  not  set  up 
a  man  of  straw  to  combat. 

I  like  the  Presbyterians — they  are  a  cool,  calcu- 
lating, deliberating  people.  They  are  a  learned  and 
pious  body,  and  love  to  reason.  I  will  do  my  oppo- 
nent the  justice  to  say,  that  he  likes  discussion,  if  he 
can  only  get  things  modelled  into  the  right  shape — 
to  suit  his  conscience! 

I  was  raised  in  New-England,  among  Presbyte- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  89 

rians.  The  time  was  when  they  ridiculed  revivals. 
But  where  do  you  now  find  a  people  more  fond  of 
night  meetings  and  reformations?  They  are  also 
coming  over  on  to  more  liberal  ground.  I  have  fre- 
quently addressed  their  congregations,  at  their  own 
solicitation,  and  was  affectionately  requested  to  re- 
peat my  visit.  But  this  gentleman  cannot  fellow- 
ship with  Christians,  unless  they  subscribe  to  his 
dogmas.  I  am  glad  that  many  of  his  Trinitarian 
brethren  are  getting  off  the  straight -jacket — that  they 
are  abandoning  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  and  in- 
fant damnation — and  the  spirit  of  bigotry  and  pha- 
risaical  exclusiveness,  by  which  my  opponent  pre- 
sumes to  send  Mr.  Pierpont,  Mohammedans,  and  all 
Anti-Trinitarians,  to  hell  in  a  batch. 

"Of  Qojy—ancl  of  the  Holy  Trinity.''— See  Vves- 
byterian  Confession  of  Faith,  page  21.  Why  this  dis- 
tinction? Perhaps  the  gentleman  can  tell  us.  He 
understands  language,  and  I  ask  him,  is  not  "  of 
God"  one  thing,  and  "  of  the  Holy  Trinity"  another? 
I  call  on  the  gentleman  to  explain  the  distinction. 
He  had  better  leave  Mr.  Kinkade,  and  attend  to  his 
own  creed,  and  the  Holy  Bible.  I  challenge  him  to  put 
his  finger  on  the  verse  in  this  book,  which  proves 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  not  here  !  The 
doctrine  cannot  be  even  inferred  from  the  passages 
produced  by  the  gentleman.  We  have  shown  that 
it  comes  from  the  mercenary,  canting  Bishops  of  the 
fourth  century,  whose  God,  to  judge  from  the  histo- 
rian, was  Lord  Beelzebub. 

The  Bible  says  there  is  but  one  God,  and  that 
God  is  a  Spirit.    Where  does  the  gentleman  find  the 
8  " 


90 

doctrine  of  a  divine  essence  with  three  distinct  per- 
sons or  beings  ?  Give  us  the  chapter  and  verse.  The 
term  three  persons  is  not  apphed  to  God  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  term  person  is  once  apphed  to  God.  Paul 
says,  of  the  Son,  that  he  is  "  the  brightness  of  the 
Father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  oihis person.'^ 
The  person  here  spoken  of  is  the  oie  God  of  the 
Bible — the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Jesus  himself  says — "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I — 
my  Father  is  greater  than  all."  I  ask  the  gentleman 
to  clear  up  this  "mystery."  It  is  not  "Human 
nature,"  but  the  Son,  that  speaks. 

My  opponent  says,  the  figure  of  a  man  is  the  best 
figm-e  of  the  Trinity  in  all  creation.  Who  believes 
that  Mr.  M'Calla  is  three  persons  ?  If  he  should  be 
brought  into  Court  to  testify,  would  his  body,  soul, 
and  spirit,  be  received  as  tlu'ee  distinct  witnesses? 
Does  any  man  present  believe  that  his  wife  is  three 
/  persons  ?  Does  any  woman  believe  her  husband  is 
three  persons  ?  The  Scripture  saith — "  And  they 
twain  shall  be  one."  But,  from  the  gentleman's 
reasoning,  they  twain  must  be  six  !  Does  he  believe 
this  ?  Just  as  much  as  those  galloping  bishops  be- 
lieved in  the  "mysterious  and  incomprehensible" 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  They  may  hurl  their  thun- 
derbolts at  us,  for  not  believing  their  absurd  dogmas, 
but  who  have  quarrelled  more  than  Trinitarians 
about  this  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  How  various  are 
the  methods  by  which  they  attempt  to  explain  its 
"  mcomprehensibilities."  Dr.  Emmons,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, says,  "  there  is  a  certain  something  in  the 
divine  nature,  which  lays  a  proper  foundation  for  such 

i 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  ,     91 

a  personal  distinction.  But  what  that  something  is, 
can  neither  be  described  nor  conceived.  Here  Ues 
the  whole  mystery  of  the  Trinity.'^  What  founda- 
tion for  belief  is  that  which  can  neither  be  described 
nor  conceived.  Again,  the  Doctor  says — "  There  is 
nothing  in  the  whole  circle  of  naturc  which  bears 
the  least  resemblance  of  three  persons  in  one  God.'^ 
A  very  just  confession.  But  my  opponent  sa^^s  that 
man  is  the  best  figure  of  the  Trinity  in  all  creation. 
Again,  the  Doctor  says — "Indeed,  there  is  no  word 
in  any  language,  which  can  convey,  a  precise  idea 
of  this  incomprehensible  distinction  in  the  divine  na- 
ture." Is  this  the  reason  they  have  introduced  the 
unscriptural,  high-sounding,  great  swelling  words, 
"co-equal,"  "co-essential,"  "co-eternal,"  "triune," 
"trinity,"  and  "three-one  God,"  to  express  the 
mysterious,  incomprehensible,  "certain  something," 
which  "  can  neither  be  described  nor  conceived  ?" 
The  Doctor  adds — "  It  is  very  immaterial  whether 
we  use  the  name  person,  or  any  other  name,  or  a  cir- 
cumlocution instead  of  a  name,  in  discoursing  upon 
this  subject."  Would  it  not  be  better  to  let  it  alone 
altogether?  For  all  this  is  adding  to  God's  word. 
And  remember  that  he  who  adds  to  this  book  is 
accursed. 

The  scripture  saith  that  Jesus  is  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  that  he  was  raised  from  the  dead,  and  by 
God  exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins.  I  be- 
lieve this,  and  yet  my  opponent  says,  I  am  leading 
you  to  hell.  All  this  is  mere  assertion.  Give  us 
argument — give  us  plain  Scripture  testimony — and 


92  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

not  skim  over  creation  to  rake  up  Atheists  and 
Fanny  Wrights.  By  this  Bible  we  are  governed — 
this  is  our  creed.  Let  the  gentleman  prove  to  us 
from  this  book,  that  we  are  in  error,  and  he  shall 
have  our  everlasting  gratitude. 
Adjourned  to  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 


At  the  close  of  Mr.  Plummer's  address — 

Mr.  Scholejield  said  he  felt  it  due  to  himself  to 
take  some  notice  of  certain  remarks  which  had  been 
made  by  Mr.  M'Calla,  charging  him  v/ith  supporting 
an  Atheist  on  a  particular  occasion.  The  statement 
of  the  gentleman  was  untrue,  and  calculated  to  give 
a  false  impression.  The  individual  referred  to  was 
Mr.  Kneeland,  who  at  the  time  was  professedly  no 
more  an  Atheist  than  the  gentleman  himself  Since 
Mr.  Kneeland  had  declared  himself  to  be  an  Atheist, 
he  had  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  him.  He 
had  a  desire  to  be  in  fellowship  with  all  good  men. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  May  I  be  allowed  to  ask  the 
name  of  that  gentleman  ? 

Mr.  Scholejield.     John  Scholefield. 

Mr.  M'Calla.  I  would  ask  this  audience  if  1 
have  referred  to  any  JNIr.  Scholefield  ? 

Mr.  Plummer  said  the  gentleman  had  referred  to 
some  person  brought  here,  as  having  supported  an 
Atheist  on  a  former  occasion.  The  allusion  of  the 
gentleman  was  well  understood.     His  manner  of 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  93 

making  the  insinuation,  as  well  as  his  present  quib- 
ble, are  both  characteristic. 

Mr.  Chas.  H.  Plmnmer  here  addressed  the  au- 
dience, and  stated,  that  if  any  person  wished  to 
obtain  a  condensed  work  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  it  could  be  obtained  at  the  desk  gratis,  or 
for  the  small  sum  of  Q^  cents.  The  pamphlet  ori- 
ginated in  this  manner: — Some  ten  years  since,  in  a 
Theological  Debating  Society  in  Philadelphia,  ]Mr. 
M'Calla  challenged  Mr.  Plummer  to  a  discussion  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  Mr.  Plummer  ac- 
cepted, and  agreed  to  meet  him  before  the  society  at 
the  following  meeting.  At  the  appointed  time  Mr. 
Plummer  attended,  prepared  for  the  discussion,  but 
Mr.  M'Calla  was  not  forthcoming.  He  delivered 
his  speech  and  threw  it  on  the  table  for  a  reply.  No 
one  attempted  to  answer  his  arguments,  and  the 
speech  was  subsequently  printed  at  the  request  of 
those  who  heard  it.  Mr.  M'Calla  was  thus  the 
cause  of  the  publication,  as  he  is  of  the  present  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr,  Hall  expressed  his  disapprobation  of  the 
remarks  made  by  the  last  mentioned  gentleman.  He 
thought  his  course  in  the  highest  degree  censurable, 
and  hoped  the  citizens  of  Delaware  county  would 
maintain  their  dignity,  and  discountenance  any  thing 
which  was  calculated  to  create  an  midue  bias  in 
their  minds  in  favor  of  either  of  the  disputants.  He 
trusted  nothing  would  transpire  to  interrupt  the  dis- 
cussion, or  excite  feelings  which  might  end  in  blood- 
shed. 


94  PLUMMER  AND  m'c ALLANS 

Wednesday,  1  P.  M. 
MR.  M^CALLA. 

In  my  former  address  I  intimated  that  the  Unita- 
rians rallied  in  Philadelphia  under  some  one  not 
mentioned.  I  also  intimated  that  some  one  had 
been  brought  here,  who,  on  a  former  occasion,  had 
countenanced  an  Atheist.  No  one,  however,  had  a 
right  to  take  my  remarks  to  himself,  miless  he  con- 
sidered them  applicable.  I  said  that  I  had  always 
believed  Mr.  Kneeland  to  be  an  Atheist.  The  gentle- 
man knew  that  he  was  an  Atheist  just  as  well  before 
as  after  he  openly  declared  his  Atheistical  doctrines. 
I  like  to  see  a  man  stick  to  a  friend  in  adversity,  as 
well  as  in  prosperity.  I  always  make  it  a  matter  of 
principle  to  be  faitliful  to  a  friend.  In  a  crowd,  if  I 
see  a  man  abused,  and  without  friends,  I  always  feel 
it  my  duty  to  be  his  friend.  Such  are  ever  the  feel- 
ings of  a  Kentuckian. 

The  truth  is,  Mr.  Kneeland  is  just  as  good  a  man 
now,  as  he  was  before  he  embraced  the  doctrines  of 
Fanny  Wright.  Mr.  Kinkade  also  has  been  put 
down ;  but  for  a  long  time  the  saddle-bags  of  his 
brother  Unitarians  were  filled  with  this  book.  It 
was  annomiced  here  to-day,  that  if  any  one  wished 
to  see  Trinitarianism  exposed,  he  had  only  to  come 
forward  and  pay  6i  cents  !  But  of  Mr.  Kinkade's 
book  whole  saddle-bag  loads  were  distributed  at  one 
dollar  each  ! 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  95 

It  must  have  been  a  patent  machine,  by  which  my 
opponent  was  able  to  prove  me  an  Atheist, — Chris- 
tians were  so  called  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church. 
Polycarp  was  denounced  as  an  Atheist,  because  he 
would  not  bow  down  to  Pagan  deities.  The  cry  of 
the  multitude  was — "  This  is  the  doctor  of  Asia — 
the  father  of  the  Christians — the  subverter  of  our 
Gods  !''  They  promised  that  if  he  would  say,  ^'Away 
with  the  the  Atheists  !"  (referrmg  to  the  Pagans)  his 
life  should  be  spared.  But  '-Away  with  the  Athe- 
ists'' did  not  satisfy  them,  and  he  was  put  to  death ! 
What  he  said  of  the  worshippers  of  material  deities 
then,  I  say  now, — they  are  Atheists,  even  if  they  call 
themselves  Christians,  as  Mr.  Kinkade  and  my  op- 
ponent do. 

It  is  astonishing  how  anxious  these  Chynstians 
are  to  commune  with  Atheists.  My  opponent,  I  mi- 
derstand,  talks  about  revivals  to  the  Presbyterians, 
— ^baptism  to  the  Baptists, — and  it  is  Amen  !  when 
he  gets  among  the  Methodists.  Among  the  Qua- 
kers, I  am  told,  he  sometimes  wears  a  broader  brim 
than  this  old  white  hat  of  mine,  which  v/as  presented 
to  me  on  the  Brassos  river,  in  Texas.  The  real  fol- 
lower of  Jesus,  likes  to  keep  a  conscience  void  of 
offence.  I  would  rather  be  led  to  the  scaffold  than 
give  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  the  enemies  of 
my  Divine  Master. 

We  were  yesterday  told  by  my  opponent,  that  he 
had  been  frequently  invited  into  the  pulpits  of  Pres- 
byterians. To-day  the  mystery  is  explained — 
^^  Many  Presbyterians  in  New  England  invited  him 
into  their  pulpits,  and  affectionately  solicited  a  repe- 


96  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

tition  of  his  visit."  These  very  Presbyterians  have 
since  become  Unitarians,  and  denied  the  God  who 
bought  them.  It  was  just  what  he  had  a  right  to 
expect  from  such  abominable  creatures. 

My  opponent  has  told  you  that  I  have  declared 
"  the  figure  of  a  man  to  be  the  best  figure  in  creation 
of  the  Trinity."  At  another  time  he  said  that  I  de- 
clared "the  figure  of  a  man  to  be  the  h^sX proof  in 
creation  of  the  Trinity;" — ^thus  trying  to  make  me 
substitute  his  human  god  for  the  true  God,  and  sub- 
stitute the  figure  of  a  man  for  that  proof  which 
infallible  inspiration  affords.  I  never  said  that  the 
figure  of  a  man  was  a  figure  of  the  Trinity,  nor 
that  it  was  a  proof  of  the  Trinity.  I  have  always 
alleged,  that  the  inspired  Scriptures  were  the  real 
proof  of  the  Trinity,  and  have  only  adduced  the 
mysterious  complicated  human  constitution  as  an 
illustration  of  the  mysterious  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  this  respect,  that  the  existence  of  two  beings,  a 
material  and  immaterial,  in  one  human  person,  was 
to  me  incomprehensible,  as  the  strange  mysterious 
union  of  three  Divine  persons  in  one  Divine  essence, 
appears  to  me  incomprehensible. 

I  have  said  that  we  camiot  fully  comprehend  the 
doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  Divine  essence,  but 
that  we  can  understand  its  general  outlines.  By  the 
word  person,  used  in  describing  the  distinctions  of 
the  Godhead,  Trinitarians  do  not  mean  what  is 
usually  meant  when  it  is  applied  to  other  things. 
They  do  not  mean  a  totally  separate  identity  of 
essence,  as  we  do  when  we  say,  my  friend  is  one 
person  and  I  am  another.     Such  a  separate  identity, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  97 

possessed  of  all  the  independent  powers  of  con- 
sciousness, judging  and  willing,  Avould  make  three 
different  minds  or  beings;  and  if  each  were  God, 
there  would  undoubtedly  be  three  Gods!  Trini- 
tarians believe  in  one  God — that  this  one  Deity,  or 
Godhead,  exists  by  a  distinction  of  what  may  be 
called  persons — that  these  persons  are  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  a  threefold  distinction,  and 
therefore  by  us  called  Trinity — and  that  each  of 
these  persons,  though  possessing  some  properties 
which  do  not  belong  to  the  others,  nevertheless  truly 
and  properly  possesses  the  eternal  and  supreme  nature 
of  God,  the  one  as  much  as  the  other.  These  per- 
sons, therefore,  though  divine,  are  not  other  Gods, 
nor  does  such  a  distinction  involve  any  known  con- 
tradiction. 

My  opponent,  like  all  the  Unitarians,  and  Liberal- 
ists  in  religion,  appears  to  think  himself  possessed 
of  reason  in  a  very  exalted  and  infallible  form.  He 
has  only  to  say  that  a  thing  is  inconsistent  with  his 
reason,  and  then  it  must  be  wrong  of  course,  and 
Voltaire  has  only  to  say,  or  Mr.  Kneeland  has  only 
to  say,  that  a  thing  is  inconsistent  with  his  reason, 
and  it  has  to  be  stricken  out  of  his  creed.  From 
such  men.  Christians  diifer  much  concerning  the 
province  of  reason.  The  reason  of  fallen  man  is  cor- 
rupt, depraved  and  dark,  and  this  may  account,  in 
some  measure,  for  the  mnumerable  and  diametrical 
contradictions  which  we  find  between  the  reason  of 
one  man  and  the  reason  of  another.  Feeling  the 
infinite  inferiority  of  oiu-  fallen  reason  to  the  perfect 
wisdom  of  our  Creator,  Christians  do  not  like  to  con- 

9 


98  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

tradict  him,  nor  bring  their  reason  into  competition 
with  his.  If  they  are  enabled,  by  a  clear  and  correct 
exercise  of  their  reason,  to  ascertain  that  the  Scrip- 
tures were  written  by  the  God  of  truth,  their  reason 
is  not  allowed  to  contradict  one  sentence  of  his  word, 
but  only  to  ascertain  his  meaning,  taking  it  for 
granted  that  if  we  have  differed  from  him  in  opinion, 
we  must  now  conform  our  opinion  to  his,  and  not 
expect  him  to  surrender  his  to  ours. 

Before  revelation  was  completed,  God  gave  some 
light  by  the  works  of  creation,  but  Pagans  and  coun- 
terfeit Christians  alike  would  be  wise  above  what 
is  written.  Paul  notices  such  in  Romans  i.  22,  23 — 
"  Professing  themselves  to  be  wise  they  became  fools, 
and  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into 
an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to  birds 
and  four-footed  beasts  and  creeping  things."  My  op- 
ponent's Christians  have  already  changed  the  glory 
of  the  incorruptible  God  into  the  image,  the  body, 
parts  and  passions  of  corruptible  man.  The  next 
lesson  of  course  will  lead  them  to  the  four-footed 
beasts  and  creeping  things.  But,  say  they, "  we  dis- 
card Mr.  Kinkade — his  doctrines  are  becoming  un- 
popular !^^  and,  say  they,  "he  was  no  better  than 
an  old  hunter,  any  how !"  Is  this  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  to  do  homage  to  a  man  while  his  books 
will  sell  rapidly  at  a  dollar  a  piece,  and  then,  when 
he  falls,  and  the  Pagan  corruption  of  his  book  be- 
comes manifest,  to  cast  him  off  with  contempt  as  an 
old  hunter,  because  he  is  mipopular  ?  This  is  the 
very  spirit  which  Paganism  exhibited  from  the  in- 
fancy of  Christianity.     One  reason  given  by  Celsus, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  99 

in  the  second  century,  for  his  opposition,  was  that 
instead  of  flattermg  the  wealthy  and  philosophical 
world,  Christianity  opened  the  door  of  heaven  to  the 
poor  and  unlearned,  whom  he  chose  to  call  weavers 
and  shoemakers.  If  Mr.  Kuikade  be  an  old  hunter, 
it  is  probable  that  he  formed  the  pattern  for  the  old 
man  whom  he  represents  as  God.  It  is  probable 
that,  like  the  old  hmiter,  Alexander  the  Great,  he 
wished  to  be  deified,  and  worshipped  after  his  death ; 
but  it  seems  that  he  has  now  become  less  popular, 
and  some  other  old  man  must  mount  the  Unitarian 
throne,  who  is  not  a  hunter,  iveaver  or  shoemaker  ! 
But  if  such  characters  are  to  be  despised,  will  it 
operate  favorably  to  my  opponent  and  his  friends  1: 

If  the  created  reason  were  equal  to  the  Divine 
reason,  we  should  have  no  mysteries.  These  Pagan 
"Christians'^  do  not  admit  that  religion  has  any 
mystery,  even  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  is  a  sort  of  wisdom  which  the  Jews  had  very 
abundantly  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  in  the 
light  of  the  New  Testament  it  appears  perfect  folly. 
To  them  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  prophe- 
cies was  a  profomid  mystery,  though  their  pride 
would  not  acknowledge  it.  Not  recognising  the  divi- 
nity and  humanity  in  the  iSIessiah  of  the  inspired 
prophets,  they  could  not  believe  that  one  and  the 
same  person  was  to  be  both  an  immolated  victim 
and  an  immortal  victor.  So  the  Materialist,  not 
recognising  the  union  of  a  material  body  with  an 
immaterial  spirit,  in  the  human  constitution,  cannot 
believe  that  one  and  the  same  person  is  both  mortal 
and  immortal. 


100  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


MR.  PLUMMER. 

Mr.  Chairmariy 

I  regret  that  any  thing  has  occured  to  create  un- 
pleasant feeling,  or  to  excite  apprehensions  that  this 
discussion  might  end  unpleasantly.  I  hope  that 
strength  will  be  afforded  me  to  disarm  myself  of  all 
disposition  to  indulge  in  a  spirit  of  bitterness,  or  de- 
sire of  vengeance,  on  those  whom  I  may  consider  in 
error.  We  can  neither  make  nor  alter  facts, — we 
can  only  come  to  the  knowledge  of  them.  He  who 
is  so  fortunate  as  to  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  should  be  the  last  to  wish  to  take  vengeance 
on  those  who  labor  in  ignorance,  darkness,  and 
error.  Truth  will  remain  eternal.  We  may  be  mis- 
taken— God  cannot.  Nor  would  we  render  railing 
for  railing.  There  is  no  fear  but  God  will  render,  in 
due  season,  all  the  punishment  necessary.  When 
Michael  disputed  with  the  devil  about  the  body  of 
Moses,  he  dm-st  not  give  him  a  railing  accusation,  but 
said,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee. 

The  gentleman  has  again  associated  my  name  with 
that  of  Mr.  Kneeland.  I  will  take  this  opportunity  to 
say  again,  that  I  have  never  had  the  slightest  con- 
nexion with  Mr.  Kneeland.  I  am  charged  with 
being  his  friend.  I  have  met  Mr.  Kneeland  as  an 
opponent  in  discussion,  and  so  have  Presbyterians. 
There  is  not  a  person  present  who  can  justify  the 
gentleman's  false  insinuations.     We  have  also  been 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  101 

accused  of  deserting  Mr.  Kinkade  in  adversity.  But, 
I  repeat,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  Mr.  Kinkade  in 
this  discussion.  We  have  never  circulated  his  book, 
nor  advocated  his  doctrine.  He  also  classes  me  with 
Fanny  Wright  and  with  IVIr.  Campbell.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell ranks  high  for  talents  and  piety.  His  debate 
with  Robert  Owen  is  in  the  hands  of  Presbyterians 
and  other  Trinitarians,  and  is  highly  approved.  Owen 
challenged  Campbell  to  a  discussion  on  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures.  Mr.  Campbell  met  him,  and 
gave  his  doctrines  to  the  four  winds. 

The  gentleman  also  ranks  us  with  Charming, 
Pierpont  and  Priestley.  He  is  attaching  to  us  alto- 
gether too  much  importance.  But  we  look  only  to 
the  Bible,  and  take  nothing  second  hand. — When  we 
have  doubts,  we  always  consult  that  glorious  book 
of  inspiration. 

The  gentleman  is  mistaken  in  another  respect.  I 
did  not  call  him  an  Atheist.  I  only  inferred  it  from 
his  own  showmg.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  miderstood 
as  chargmg  either  that  gentleman  or  any  other  Pres- 
byterian with  Atheism.  I  wish  only  to  touch  on 
doctrmes,  without  impugning  the  motives  or  calling 
in  question  the  sincerity  of  any  man.  God  alone 
must  judge  in  this  respect.  I  did  prove,  by  argument 
unanswered,  that  he  had,  by  his  own  reasonmg,  con- 
victed himself  of  Atheism. — I  asked  him  to  clear  his 
skirts  of  the  implication.  He  pointed  to  a  man 
standing  at  the  stove,  and  declared  him  to  be  the 
"best  figure  in  creation  of  the  Trinity."  If  these 
were  not  his  words,  I  stand  corrected  ;  but  my  state- 
ment is  corroborated  by  the  whole  congregation. 


102  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  was  said  by 
the  gentleman  to  be  based  on  the  Scriptures.  The 
Confession  of  Faith  says  that,  "under  the  name  of 
Scripture,  or  the  word  of  God  written,  are  now  con- 
tained aU  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
— all  of  which  are  given  by  mspiration  of  God,  to 
be  the  rule  of  Faith  and  life" — that  "the  whole 
council  of  God,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for 
his  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith  and  life,  is 
either  expressly  set  down  m  Scriptm-e,  or  by  good 
and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture ;  unto  which  nothhig  at  any  time  is  to  be 
added,  whether  by  new  i^evelations  of  the  Spirit  or 
traditions  of  men,''''  Amen!  To  this  do  we  most 
heartily  subscribe.  And  yet  this  entire  Confession 
of  Faith  has  been  added.  Why  are  these  400  pages 
added  to  the  Scriptiu'es?  Nothmg  shall  at  any  time 
be  added.  I  hope  the  doctrine  that  the  Scriptures 
are  all-sufficient  will  prevail  among  Presbyterians, 
not  because  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  but  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  But  if  you 
will  contend  for  this  addition,  mind  you  don't  get 
the  curse.  "If  any  man  shall  add  unto  these  things, 
God  shall  add  mito  him  the  plagues  that  are  written 
in  the  book." — Nothing  is  to  be  added,  "whether 
by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit  or  traditions  of 
menJ^  "We  wish  not  to  grapple  with  the  traditions 
of  men.  Let  the  gentleman  cease  sending  me  and 
my  friends  to  hell,  and  confine  himself  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. We  wish  to  grapple  with  him  upon  the  word 
of  God. 

"AU  things  in  Scriptiu-e   are  not  alike  plain  in 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  103 

themselves,  (says  the  Confession  of  Faith)  nor  alike 
clear  unto  all;  yet  these  things  which  are  necessary 
to  be  known,  believed  and  observed,  for  salvation, 
are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened  in  some  place 
of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned,  but 
the  unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means, 
may  attain  unto  a  sufficient  miderstanding  of  them." 
I  have  been  laboring  for  years  with  ordinary  means. 
I  have  endeavored  to  make  the  word  of  God  ^"a 
lamp  to  my  feet,  and  a  light  mito  my  path."  But 
if  the  learned  gentleman  can  aid  us  in  the  know- 
ledge of  this  book,  we  shall  be  happy  to  be  enlight- 
ened by  him. 

Again,  the  Confession  says,  ^'  The  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scriptm-e  is  the  Scripture  itself; 
and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the 
true  and  full  sense  of  any  Scriptm-e,  (which  is  not 
manifold  but  one)  it  may  be  searched  and  known 
by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly.  The 
Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies  of  re- 
ligion are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  coim- 
cils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men, 
and  private  Spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in 
whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but 
the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture."  In  all 
this  I  agree  most  heartily.  Presbyterians  and  Chris- 
tians should  all  lay  this  book  aside,  and  learn  what 
the  will  of  God  is  from  his  infallible  and  eternal 
word,  the  Holy  Scriptures.  For  twenty -five  years 
have  I  preached  this  word  in  the  comities  of  Phila- 
delphia, Bucks,  Delaware,  and  Montgomery,  and  if 
any  mortal  can  say  I  have  ever  avowed  other  than 


104  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

these  sentiments^  let  me  be  reproached  as  a  hypo- 
crite. 

The  gentleman  says  I  have  gone  romid  to  create 
sympathy  among  the  Quakers  or  Friends.  When- 
ever I  have  visited  them,  I  have  endeavored  to  do 
my  duty  conscientiously.  But  that  I  have  ever 
sought  sympathy  by  compromising  my  faith  in  this 
Holy  Creed — this  word  of  God — I  utterly  deny.  I 
have  spoken  in  some  twenty-five  of  their  houses, 
and  have  always  been  greeted  aifectionately,  and 
with  an  m-gent  request  to  visit  them  again.  I  have 
never  said  split — ^have  never  promoted  disunion 
among  them.  But  I  have  said  to  both  parties, 
"  Open  yom  big  house — call  your  big  men — let  the 
matter  be  discussed — and  after  all  have  been  heard, 
let  the  majority  decide  and  the  minority  submit." 

I  have  rejoiced  to  see  Presbyterians  so  free  for 
discussion.  They  have  split  on  their  Creed — some 
httle  knotty  difficulty — and  not  on  the  word  of  God. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  word  of  God  which  autho- 
rises Christians  to  split  into  sects  and  parties.  If  we 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  deal 
justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with  God, 
are  we  to  be  denounced  as  infidels  and  heretics,  and 
to  be  damned  because  we  cannot  understand  knotty 
doctrines  ?  If  others  will  not  fellowship  with  me, 
they  cannot  deprive  me  of  an  approving  conscience 
before  God.  I  am  going  down  into  the  grave  in  a 
few  days.  My  hope  is  in  God — I  seek  not  for  popu- 
larity among  men,  and  wish  no  change  of  faith. 
And  shall  I  be  accused  of  deserting  the  word  of 
God,  creeping  after  sects,  and  consorting  with  Athe- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  105 

ists  ?  It  would  be  about  as  reasonable  to  call  me  an 
Atheist  as  to  say,  "Away  with  him — crucify  him, — 
he  teacheth  contrary  to  our  customs!" 

The  gentleman  has  quoted  the  text,  "  I  and  my 
Father  are  One,"  (John  x.  30,)  to  prove  that  Jesus 
is  the  Supreme,  eternal  God  !  If  these  are  one,  how 
can  that  be  ?  Does  he  not  speak  of  the  Father  as 
distinct  from  himself,  and  himself  as  distinct  from 
the  Father,  as  "/  and  7ny  Father  are  one?"  He 
does  not  say  that  these  are  one  person,  nor  three  per- 
sons. There  is  not  an  expression  of  this  kind  in  the 
book  of  God.  And  yet  the  gentleman  has  quoted 
this  language  as  conclusive  proof  that  the  Father  and 
Son  are  one  God.  But  let  us  examine  this  text  in 
connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  paragraph.  "  Then 
came  the  Jews  round  about  him,  and  said  unto  him, 
How  long  dost  thou  make  us  to  doubt  ?  If  thou  be 
the  Christ — [not  if  thou  he  the  Jehovah!^ — tell  us 
plainly.  Jesus  answered  them,  I  told  you,  and  ye 
believed  not.  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's 
name,  they  bear  witness  of  me.  But  ye  believe 
not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep,  as  I  said  unto 
you.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them, 
and  they  follow  me :  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal 
life,  and  they  shall  never  perish.  Neither  shall  any 
man  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand." 

Here  let  it  be  distinctly  observed,  that  the  object 
of  Christ  is,  to  save  these  sheep.  And  if  not  able 
himself  to  save  them,  he  adds  : 

"  My  Father,  which  gave  them  me  is  greater  than 
all :  and  none  is  able  to  pluck  them  out  of  my  Fa- 
ther's hand.     I  and  my  Father  are  one." 


106  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

They  are  one  in  design  or  purpose  to  save  these 
sheep.  That  this  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  lan- 
guage, can  be  shown  from  the  language  of  Christ 
himself  In  the  17th  Chapter  of  John,  Christ  says, — 
"Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one,  as 
we  are.  The  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me,  I  have 
given  them,  that  they  may  he  one,  even  as  we  are 
one.  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be 
made  perfect  m  one/^  Christ  is  here  praying  for  the 
apostles.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  his  meaning  was 
that  they  should  all  become  one  apostle,  and  that 
one,  Chy'ist  himself?  Such  an  explanation  would  be 
just  as  plausible  as  the  gentleman's  explanation  of 
the  passage,  "  I  and  my  Father  are  one.''  The  evi- 
dent object  of  the  passage  was,  that  they  should  be 
one  in  mind  and  effort,  as  he  and  the  Father  were 
one.  Christ  adds, — "  Neither  pray  I  for  these  alone, 
but  them  also  which  shall  believe  on  me,  through 
their  word,  that  they  all  may  be  one,  as  thou  Father, 
art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one 
in  us,  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast 
sent  me."  Thus  it  is  clear,  that  the  oneness  spoken 
of  in  the  passage  quoted  by  the  gentleman,  as  exist- 
ing between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  is  the  same  one- 
ness which  Christ  prays  unto  his  Father  may  exist 
among  the  apostles,  and  also  in  the  whole  church. 

We  will  now  go  back  to  the  10th  of  John:  "I 
and  my  Father  are  one.  Then  the  Jews  took  up 
stones  to  stone  him.  Jesus  answered  them,  many 
good  works  have  I  shown  unto  you  from  my  Fa- 
ther ;  [not  his  own  works,  but  his  Father^ s ;]  for 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  107 

which  of  these  do  you  stone  me  ?  The  Jews  an- 
swered him,  saying,  For  a  good  work  we  stone  thee 
not,  but  for  blasphemy,  and  because  that  thou,  being 
a  man,  makest  thyself  God.  [Did  they  speak  the 
truth  ?  No.  They  charged  him  falsely.]  Jesus  an- 
swered them.  Is  it  not  written  m  yom'  law,  I  said 
ye  are  Gods  ?  If  he  called  them  Gods,  imto  whom 
the  word  of  God  came,  and  the  Scriptures  cannot  be 
broken,  say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath  sanc- 
tified and  sent  into  the  world,  Thou  blasphemest ; 
because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son  of  God.^' 

Jesus  Christ  never  said  that  he  was  God  himself, 
but  uniformly  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God — the  sanc- 
tified and  sent  of  the  Father.  The  Jews  accused 
him  of  making  himself  God,  but  he  denied  it.  The 
gentleman  now  brings  the  same  accusation — that 
"  he  maketh  himself  one  with  the  Father."  Can  the 
gentleman  and  his  wife  be  called  one  person  or  being, 
because  it  is  said,  "  they  twain  shall  be  one."  No. 
Paul  says — "  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered.  Now 
he  that  planteth  and  he  that  watereth  are  one" — not 
one  apostle,  but  one  in  design  that  the  plant  might 
grow  and  flourish. 


lOS  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


MR.  M'CALLA. 


I  cannot  consent  to  receive  my  creed  from  those 
who  adopt  the  belief  that  the  Supreme  Almighty 
God  is  a  material  being. 

My  opponent  calls  me  an  Atheist  in  one  speech, 
and  in  the  next  declares  that  he  only  called  me  so 
from  my  own  showing.  He  caught  up  his  notes, 
with  an  air  of  exultation,  and  declared  that  I  had 
said,  the  best  figure  of  the  Trinity  m  creation,  was 
the  figure  of  a  man.  Now  the  best  of  proof  can  be 
produced,  to  show  that  I  made  no  such  statement. 
I  am  always  very  cautious  about  committing  myself 
to  any  Reporter.  I  never  like  to  put  myself  in  the 
power  of  any  man ;  for  he  who  could  thus  represent 
my  language,  could  report  me  to  the  gallows  in 
three  minutes. 

My  opponent  says,  "  Why  do  they  add  these  four 
hundred  pages  to  the  Bible ?'^  I  say,  "Why  do 
they  add  this  abommable,  filthy  little  pamphlet  to 
the  Bible  ?"  We  do  not  refer  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  to  prove  our  doctrines.  If  I  were  to  hear  it 
done  by  a  Presbyterian  clergyman,  I  should  take 
my  hat  and  walk  out.  "  That  man,"  I  should  say, 
"  is  not  in  his  senses  !'' 

But  let  us  refer  to  that  dear  Saviour,  of  whose 
divuiity  I  love  to  talk.  I  hope  to  speak  of  it  till 
death,  and  in  the  realms  of  glory.  It  makes  my 
heart  warm  within  me,  to  speak  of  him  instead  of 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  109 

the  old  hunter's  divinity — not  a  bit  better  than  Jug- 
gernaut ! 

Jesus  says,  "  I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of 
David."  (Rev.  xxii.  16.)  This  is  as  much  as  to 
say  that  he  is  both  the  Father  and  the  Son  of  David. 
On  this  subject  our  Saviour  asked  the  Jewish  bre- 
thren of  my  opponent  a  question,  which  it  is  hard  to 
answer  consistently,  without  the  doctrine  of  two  na- 
tures." "If  David  call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his 
Son  ?"  To  us  it  is  plain,  that  Jesus  is  David's  Lord 
and  Father,  according  to  the  divine  nature,  and  he 
is  his  Son  according  to  the  human  nature.  With- 
out such  an  interpretation,  the  Bible  could  not  be 
defended  from  the  charge  of  contradiction.  Now 
we  can  easily  understand  in  what  sense  Christ  says, 
at  one  time,  «  My  Father  is  greater  than  I."  (John 
xiv.  28.)  At  another  time,  "  I  and  my  Father  are 
one,  (John  x.  30,)  and,  "  He  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God."  (Phil.  ii.  6.)  The  Father 
is  greater  than  he,  and  yet  he  is  equal  with  the  Fa- 
ther !  How  can  these  things  be  without  two  na- 
tures ?  Christ  of  himself  can  do  nothing,  (John  v. 
30,)  yet  he  can  do  all  things,  even  the  works  of  crea- 
tion, providence,  redemption,  resurrection,  and  judg- 
ment. At  one  time  the  Son  appears  deficient  in 
knowledge,  (Mark  xiii.  32,)  yet  at  another  he  evi- 
dently knows  all  things.  (John  xvi.  30.)  At  one 
time  we  find  that  the  counsel  of  the  Father  appoints 
to  him  a  kingdom,  (Luke  xxii.  29,)  yet  again  we 
find  that  he  was  with  the  Father  in  that  counsel. 
(Prov.  viii.  27,  30.)  At  one  time  we  are  told  that 
he  is  an  angel;  but  at  another,  that  he  took  not 
10 


110  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

upon  him  the  nature  of  angels  but  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, a  httle  lower  than  the  angels.  At  one  time 
the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  body  and  parts,  the 
spirit  and  passions,  the  wants  and  sufferings  of  real 
human  nature ;  at  another,  they  ascribe  to  him  all 
the  names,  titles  and  attributes  of  the  Supreme  and 
Eternal  God. 

Our  question  is  not  as  to  a  plurality  of  Gods,  but 
of  persons  in  the  Divine  essence.  My  opponent  has 
called  for  Scripture,  and  we  will  now  give  him 
Scripture  enough. 

Genesis  i.  26 — "  And  God  said,  let  us  make  man 
in  our  own  image. '^  Is  this  God  that  is  speaking, 
and  is  there  no  plurality  here  ?  In  the  original,  the 
name  of  God  (Ehhim)  and  the  verb  to  make,  are 
both  in  the  plural.  It  is  contended,  by  some  com- 
mentators, that  this  is  only  a  figurative  way  of  speak- 
ing, to  denote  the  dignity  of  God,  and  not  to  denote 
a  plurality  of  persons  in  God.  My  opponent  will 
tell  you  that  kings  and  editors  speak  in  the  same 
style.  But  was  Moses  acquainted  with  editors? 
Besides,  language  changes,  and  Queen  Victoria  now 
says  /.  Editors,  therefore,  will  probably  soon  adopt 
the  same  form  of  expression. — "  God  said,  let  us 
make  man  in  ou?'  image,  after  our  likeness."  Here 
is  a  plurality,  though  not  Mr.  Kinkade's  plurality — 
the  likeness  of  God,  but  not  of  an  old  hunter  ! — If 
this  were  God's  mode  of  speaking  of  himself,  merely 
for  dignity's  sake,  then  might  it  have  been  expected 
that  he  would  always  have  used  this  form.  It  is  ob- 
vious, however,  that  the  plural  is  not  always  used, 
nor  generally.     There  are  innumerable  other  pas- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  Ill 

sages  where  the  smgular  is  used.  Sometunes,  indeed, 
the  name  of  God  is  plural,  and  the  verb  connected 
with  it  smgular,  as  if  to  express  unity  of  action,  com- 
bined with  plurality  of  persons.  Sometimes  both  are 
smgular,  and  sometimes  both  are  plural.  Upon  the 
supposition  of  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  this  is 
perfectly  explainable ;  but  it  is  not  explamable  on 
a.ny  other  supposition,  nor  can  we  believe  that,  with- 
out some  special  reason  for  it,  God  would  have  used 
such  a  form  of  expression  in  his  word.  Eben  Ezra, 
a  Jewish  writer,  declares  expressly  that  the  royal 
idiom  among  men,  is  the  invention  of  pride,  and  in- 
troduced long  after  the  creation. 

Genesis  iii.  22 — "  And  the  Lord  God  said,  behold 
the  man  has  become  like,  one  of  usJ'  Was  it  God 
who  said  this  ? — "  One  of  us.''  If  only  us,  it  would 
mean  a  plurality ;  but  when  the  language  is,  07ie  of 
us,  to  doubt  a  plurality  is  preposterous. 

Genesis  xi.  6,  7. — "  And  the  Lord  said,  let  us  go 
down  and  there  [Hebrew  let  us]  confomid  their  lan- 
guage."    Here  also  a  plurality  is  apparent. 

Daniel  iv.  24,  26 — "  The  most  High,  they  com- 
manded to  leave  the  stump  of  the  tree  roots  in  the 
earth." 

In  the  1 3th  verse  of  this  chapter,  we  read  of  only 
one  watcher  or  holy  one,  but  here  the  number  is 
very  remarkably  changed  from  he  said  to  they  com- 
manded.  The  words  of  the  curse  upon  Nebuchad- 
nezar  were  pronounced  by  a  watcher  and  an  holy 
one,  in  the  singular,  nevertheless  at  the  close  of  the 
speech  it  is  declared  to  be  by  the  decree  of  the 
watchers,  and  the  demand  by  the  word  of  the  holy 


112  ^LtriyfMER  AND  m'calla's 

ones  ! — Tlie  change  of  these  verbs  and  noiins  from 
the  smgular  to  the  plural,  is  a  case  to  which  there  is 
no  parallel  in  any  language,  and  can  be  reconcil- 
able only  upon  the  principle  that  there  is  a  plurality 
of  persons  in  a  unity  of  essence. 

Psalm  Ixxviii.  56 — "  They  tempted  and  provoked 
the  Most  High  God.'' 

1  Corinthians  x.  9 — "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ, 
as  some  of  them  also  tempted.''  In  the  former  pas- 
sage the  person  tempted  is  called  the  Most  High, 
and  in  the  latter  the  apostle  calls  the  same  person 
Christ. — Christ  therefore  must  be  the  Most  High. 

Daniel  v.  18,  20— -"The  Most  High  God  gave 
(plural)  to  Nebuchadnezzar  a  kingdom  and  majesty 
and  glory  and  honor.  And  they  took  his  glory  from 
him/^  The  word  they  here  is  a  plain  relation  to 
the  Most  High  God.  It  was  a  supernatural  act  of 
the  Most  High  God  that  took  away  the  glory  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  but  the  passage  clearly  shows  a 
plurality  of  persons. 

Isaiah  xxxiv.  16 — "  Seek  ye  out  of  the  book  of  the 
Lord,  and  read — ^for  my  mouth  it  hath  commanded, 
and  his  Spirit  it  hath  gathered  them." — Language 
which  all  Trinitarians  will  understand. 

Isaiah  xlviii.  16 — "And  now  the  Lord  God  and 
His  Spirit  hath  sent  me."  Here  is  a  plurality,  and 
the  person  speaking  is  Christ. 

Psalm  xxxiii.  6 — "  By  the  word  of  the  Lord  were 
the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  hosts  of  them  by  the 
breath  [Hebrew,  Spirit]  of  his  mouth."  The  breath 
of  the  Lord  here  undoubtedly  means  the  third  per- 
son in  the  Trinity.     Our  Savior  communicated  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  113 

Holy  Spirit  to  his  disciples  by  breathing  upon  thein, 
*^  a  demonstration  that  Clirist,  who,  as  a  ])e7'son,  is  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  is,  in  nature^  the  Lord  himself; 
because  the  Spirit  or  breath  of  the  Almighty,  is  also 
the  breath  of  Christ/' 

John  iii.  11 — "We  speak  that  ice  do  know,  and 
testify  that  we  have  seen,  and  ye  receive  not  our 
witness.''— John  viii.  17,  IS.  "  The  testimony  of  two 
men  is  true.  /  ajn  one  that  bear  witness  of  myself, 
and  the  Father  that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me." 
Our  blessed  Saviour,  in  these  passages,  when  speak- 
ing of  himself,  uses  the  singular  pronoun — when 
speaking  of  the  testimony,  the  plural.  "We  speak 
that  ive  do  know,  and  testify  that  ive  have  seen,  and 
ye  receive  not  our  witness,"  can  be  no  other  than 
the  witness  of  the  Trinity ;  for  it  is  added,  "  no  man 
hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  but  he  that  came 
down  from  heaven" — therefore  "no  man  could  join 
with  Christ  in  revealing  the  things  of  heaven  to  us." 

Again,  1  John  v.  7 — "For  there  be  Mree  that 
bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are  o?2e."  We  shall 
be  told  that  there  has  been  much  disputing  about 
this  text,  but  I  need  not  go  into  an  elaborate  argu- 
ment to  prove  its  authenticity.  All  that  it  contams 
with  regard  to  the  Trinity,  and  their  divine  testimony, 
is  abundantly  proved  by  other  passages. 

Matthew  xxviii.  19 — "Baptising  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.^'  Three  persons,  but  one  Divme 
essence. 

2  Corinthians  xiii.  14.  "The  Grace  of  our  Lord 
10* 


114  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all."  I  do 
not  see  that  ever  it  was  prayed  that  the  grace  of  a 
created  being  might  be  with  us  ! 

Numbers  vi.  22 — 27. — "And  the  Lord  spake  mito 
Moses  saying,  Speak  unto  Aaron  and  his  sons  saying, 
on  this  wise  ye  shall  bless  the  children  of  Israel,  say- 
ing mito  them,  The  Lord  bless  thee  and  keep  thee  : 
The  Lord  make  his  face  shine  upon  thee,  and  be 
gracious  unto  thee :  The  Lord  lift  up  his  counte- 
nance upon  thee,  and  give  thee  peace."  In  this 
blessing,  with  which  the  High  Priest  was  commanded 
to  bless  the  children  of  Israel,  the  name  of  the  Lord 
is  repeated  three  times.  Parallel  to  this  is  the  form 
of  Christian  baptism,  "wherein  the  three  personal 
terms  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  not  repre- 
sented as  so  many  different  names,  but  as  one  name 
— the  one  divme  nature  of  God,  being  no  more  di- 
vided by  these  three,  than  by  the  single  name  Lord, 
or  Jehovah,  thrice  repeated."  The  contents  of  the 
three  articles  will  be  found  to  correspond  respec- 
tively with  the  Grace,  Mercy  and  Peace  of  the  Fa- 
ther, Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  To  show  that  this  is 
the  consistent  mterpretation,  it  is  added — "  And  they 
shall  put  my  name  upon  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
I  will  bless  them."  The  same  God  puts  his  Triune 
name  upon  his  children  now,  when  they  are  bap- 
tized "in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost." 

Isaiah  vi.  3 — "  One  (seraph)  cried  unto  another, 
Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  the  whole 
earth  is  full  of  his  glory."     Here  the  perfect  number 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  113 

of  the  Trinity  is  taken  to  declare  the  manifold  holi- 
ness of  God ;  and  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost, 
are  thus  recognized  in  the  solemn  declaration  of 
worship. 

Revelations  iv.  8 — Living  creatures  "  rest  not 
day  and  night,  saying.  Holy,  holy,  holy,  *  *  ^ 
*       *       *   which  tvas,  and  is,  and  is  to  comeJ^^ 


116 

MR.  PLUMMER. 
Mr,  Chairman, 

The  gentleman  has  closed  with  Revelations,  but 
he  appeared  to  stagger.  Why  not  bring  out  the 
whole  of  the  text, — "  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God 
.mmightyr'  Lord  of  Hosts,  and  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty, are  expressions  never  addressed  to  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  Scriptures.  The  gentleman  says  the 
word  of  God  is  his  standard  of  faith  and  practice. 
If  so,  we  are  agreed.  Mr.  Wesley  also  says,  that 
<^  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are 
the  only  suiRcient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
whatsoever  is  not  read  therein,  and  proved  thereby, 
is  not  to  be  received  as  an  article  of  faith."  And 
3^et  Mr.  Vv  esley  adds  a  book  of  faith  and  discipline, 
as  large  as  the  New  Testament.  If  the  word  of  God 
is  their  standard  of  faith  and  practice,  then  why  do 
they  want  these  Creeds  and  Confessions  at  all  ?  Why 
pei-petuate  the  absurdities  of  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries  ?  Why  violate  all  mathematical  rules,  and 
pervert  the  plain  meaning  of  Scripture,  by  saying 
three  times  one  of  the  same  substance,  power  and 
eternity,  are  but  one  ?  If  a  man  be  confined  m  a 
mad-house  for  saying  once  one  is  two,  what  should 
be  the  fate  of  him  who  says  that  three  times  one  is 
but  one,  or  that  once  one  is  three  ? 

But  let  us  come  to  the  book  of  God.  The  gentle- 
man has  not  quoted  a  single  text  that  proves  his  doc- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  117 

trine.  If  the  word  of  God  contains  his  doctrine, 
should  it  not  be  clearly  and  distinctly  expressed  ? 
Would  its  great  Author  be  likely  to  leave  a  question 
like  this  in  doubt  and  uncertainty  ?  And  yet  did 
Moses  ever  say  that  Jehovah  existed  in  three  distinct 
persons  ?  Did  ever  one  of  the  Prophets  say  that  there 
were  three  persons  in  the  Divine  essence  ?  Why 
did  not  John  say,  I  have  come  to  prepare  the  way 
for  you  to  receive  the  Trinity  ?  Why  was  not  Ga- 
briel instructed  to  say,  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee  shall  be  one  of  the  Holy  three,  or  the 
Highest  himself,  instead  of  the  Son  of  the  Highest  ? 
There  are  several  ways — some  eight  or  ten — by 
which  Trinitarians  explain  this  doctrine  of  the  Trin- 
ity. Although  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the 
Divine  essence,  is  a  leading  article  in  their  creeds, 
there  are  but  few  who  acknowledge  three  co-equal, 
co-eternal  persons,  each  properly  and  really  God. 
They  differ  widely  among  themselves  on  the  sub- 
ject. Some  teach  that  there  are  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead,  and  others  that  God  has  a  trinity  of 
offices.  Some  contend  for  three  modes  of  existence, 
and  others  a  trinity  of  attributes.  There  are  others 
again,  who  deny  that  there  are,  in  the  true  sense  of 
the  word,  three  persons  in  God,  and  yet  contend  for 
three  distinctions  in  Deity.  Some  others  openly 
deny  that  there  are  three  co-eternal,  self-existent 
persons,  each  of  whom  is  God  in  the  highest  sense  of 
the  word,  but  contend  for  a  trinity  of  faculties  in  the 
Almighty.  Others  again  say  that  by  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  they  mean  only  three  operations 
of  the  Divine  Being  —  others,  that  by  three  persons, 


118  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

they  mean  three  relations  in  Deity— and  yet  others, 
that  all  we  should  understand  by  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  three  manifestations  of  God  to  his 
creatures. 

Few  of  these,  it  is  true,  dare  come  forward  and 
openly  state  their  views  of  the  doctrine.  By  so  do- 
ing, they  would  soon  get  at  loggerheads.  They, 
therefore,  wrap  it  up  in  incomprehensibilities.  Why 
not  let  alone  whatever  is  incomprehensible  in  the 
Bible,  and  never  refer  to,  or  dispute  about  any  pas- 
sage which  is  not  clearly  expressed,  and  can  not  be 
understood? 

The  gentleman  has  quoted  a  number  of  passages, 
which  he  would  have  you  believe  prove  his  doctrine. 
The  most  important  of  these  is — "  Let  us  make  man 
in  our  own  image."  The  Father  and  Son,  he  con- 
tends, ai*e  here  speaking,  and  he,  therefore,  argues 
the  existence  of  three  persons  in  the  Divine  Essence. 

The  gentleman,  in  quoting  the  passage,  has  re- 
ferred to  the  practice  of  using  the  plural  pronoun. 
But  Queen  Victoria  says  /,  and,  therefore,  he  argues 
that,  "  Let  us  make  man,"  could  not  have  been  a 
figurative  way  of  speaking,  but  must  refer  only  to 
an  act  of  the  Godhead.  But  does  that  us  prove 
that  there  were  three  distinct  persons  or  Creators  ? 
Or  if  Mree,  why  not  three  or  four  thousand?  Give 
us  the  passage  that  limits  the  number  to  three.  Why 
not  two,  or  two  thousand?  He  says  that  the  Bible  is 
filled  with  proof  of  his  doctrine.  Then  let  him  show  it. 

When  a  doubtful  passage  occurs,  ought  it  not  to 
be  received  with  caution,  unless  explained  by  other 
passages  which   are   clear  and    explicit?     Among 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  119 

civilians  and  lawyers  it  is  an  established  principle 
of  construction,  where  words  of  doubtful  meaning 
occur,  in  a  last  will  and  testament,  that  one  part  is 
to  be  explained  by  another,  and  the  sense  of  the 
testator  is  to  be  collected  from  an  impartial  view  of 
the  whole  instrument. 

Now  Moses  has  said,  "Let  us  make  man,'' but 
let  us  compare  these  words  of  Moses  with  the  rest 
of  his  writings,  and  learn  his  meaning  from  a  just 
view  of  the  whole.  In  the  very  next  verse  to  this 
passage,  speaking  of  the  same  character,  he  repeat- 
edly uses  the  singular  pronoun. — In  substituting  the 
pronoun  for  the  names  God,  Lord,  &c.,  he  has  made 
use  of  the  singular  more  than  a  hundred  times  to 
one  of  the  plural.  If  in  a  will  a  word  should  occur 
twenty-five  times  in  the  singular  and  only  once  in 
the  plural,  would  the  true  interpretation  be  consi- 
dered difficult  ?  Moses  has  said,  "  Thou  shalt  have 
no  other  Gods  before  wze" — not  even  a  second  nor 
third  Eternal.  The  Scripture  says — ^^God  is  the 
Creator  of  all  things,  and  his  glory  he  will  not  give 
to  another. ^^  Paul  says  '^one  God  has  created  us," 
and  not  tivo,  Malachi  says,  "  One  God  has  created 
us^^ — not  three.  But  to  put  this  matter  beyond  dis- 
pute we  will  refer  you  to  Jesus  Christ  himself. 
Jesus  says,  "  God  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in 
the  image  of  God  created  he  him,  male  and  female 
created  he  them,"  thus,  in  this  passage,  rendering  the 
pronoun  in  the  singular  number.  Why,  then,  if  there 
be  a  pliuality  of  Creators,  does  the  Son  of  God  render 
this  word  in  the  singular  ?    Let  the  gentleman  answer. 

The  gentleman  attaches  much  importance  to  the 


120  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

passage — ^^  God  created  all  things  by  his  Word.'' 
The  passage  itself  says,  God  created  all  things  by 
his  word.  It  is  also  said  that  he  has  created  all 
things  by  his  wisdom,  power,  and  spirit;  and  that 
he  created  all  tilings  by  and  for  his  Son,  Jesus  Cln-ist. 
It  is  therefore  evident  that  God  himself  is  the  Creator. 

The  gentleman  also  quotes  Genesis  i.  2 — "The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  moved  on  the  face  of  the  waters." 
Does  that  mean,  a  person,  or  another  being,  distinct 
from  God  ?  Is  the  spirit  of  man  distinct  from  man 
himself?  Does  not  the  miiform  language  of  Scrip- 
ture convey  a  different  idea  ?  1  Corinthians  ii.  11,  it 
is  said,  "  The  things  of  God  knoweth  no  one,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God."  Agam,  Psalm  cxxxix.  7 — "Whi- 
ther shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?"  Do  these  not  mean 
God  himself,  for  it  is  added,  "  If  I  ascend  up  into 
heaven  thou  art  there."  Again,  "  They  rebelled  and 
vexed  his  Holy  Spirit  f^  of  which  the  Lord  says — • 
"How  long  will  this  people  provoke  me .?"  Is  it  not 
evident,  therefore,  that  they  "tempted  and  provoked 
the  Most  High?'' 

Agam,  the  gentleman  quotes  John  viii.  17,  IS — 
"  The  testimony  of  two  men  is  true.  I  am  one  that 
bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  me 
beareth  witness  of  me."  Here  the  gentleman  is 
also  unfortunate  in  his  quotation.  The  testimony  is 
of  two  men,  not  one  man;  and  Christ  saith,  "I  am 
one  that  bear  witness,  and  the  Father  that  sent 
me  beareth  witness  of  me."  Are  these  two  wit- 
nesses one  being?  Could  the  gentleman  go  into 
court,  and  say,  "I  offer  myself  as  one  witness,  my 
soul  as  a  second  witness,  and  my  spirit  as  a  third 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  121 

witness?  Surely  not.  We  never  think  of  a  man's 
spirit  as  entirely  distinct  from  the  man  himself. 
When  we  say  he  is  "  a  master  spirit/'  we  mean  the 
man  himself. 

But  let  us  pass  to  John's  epistle,  "  There  are  three 
that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  these  three  are  one."  It 
is  well  known  that  the  authenticity  of  this  verse  has 
been  doubted,  and  the  subject  of  controversy  with 
those  acquainted  with  the  ancient  Greek  manu- 
scripts and  versions.  By  most  of  the  learned  wri- 
ters it  is  considered  an  interpolation,  and  many 
Trinitarians  have  abandoned  it  as  of  doubtful  au- 
thenticity. 

In  the  Improved  Version  of  the  New  Testament, 
we  have  the  folio wmg: — "  1.  This  text  concerning 
the  heavenly  witnesses  is  not  contained  in  any 
Greek  manuscript  which  was  written  earlier  than 
the  fifteenth  century.  2.  Nor  in  any  Latin  manu- 
script earlier  than  the  ninth  century.  3.  It  is  not 
found  in  any  of  the  ancient  versions.  4.  It  is  not 
cited  by  any  of  the  Greek  ecclesiastical  writers, 
though  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trmity  they 
have  cited  the  words  both  before  and  after  this  text. 

5.  It  is  not  cited  by  any  of  the  early  Latin  fathers, 
even  when  the  subjects  upon  which  they  treat  would 
naturally  have  led  them  to  appeal  to  its  authority. 

6.  It  is  first  cited  by  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  a  Latin  wri- 
ter of  no  credit,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
and  by  him  it  is  suspected  to  have  been  forged.  7. 
It  has  been  omitted  as  spurious  in  many  editions  of 
the  New  Testament  since  the  Reformation: — in  the 

11 


122 

first  two  of  Erasmus,  in  those  of  Aldus,  Colinseus, 
Zwinglius,  and  lately  of  Griesbach.  8.  It  was  omit- 
ted by  Luther  in  his  German  version.  In  the  old 
English  Bibles  of  Henry  VIII.  Edward  VI.  and 
Elizabeth,  it  was  printed  m  small  types,  or  included 
in  brackets:  but  between  the  years  1566  and  1580 
it  began  to  be  printed  as  it  now  stands;  by  whose 
authority,  is  not  known.  See  Travis's  Letters  to 
Gibbon,  and  Porson's  to  Travis.  Also,  Griesbach's 
excellent  Dissertation  on  the  Text  at  the  end  of  his 
second  volume.  Abp.  Newcome  omits  the  text,  and 
the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  expresses  his  conviction  that 
it  is  spurious.     Elem.  of  Theol.  vol.  ii.  p.  90,  note.''* 


*  Thomson's  New  Testament  has  the  following  note  on  1 
John  V.  6,  7,  8 : — "  Literally  as  in  my  copy.  This  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  who  was  to  come  (or  who  was  coming)  by  water  and 
by  blood,  not  by  the  water  only  but  by  the  water  and  the  blood, 
and  the  spirit  is  testifying  this.  Because  the  spirit  is  the  truth 
— because  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  [in  heaven,  the 
Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  three  are 
one :  and  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  on  the  earth]  the 
Spirit  and  the  Water  and  the  Blood ;  and  these  three  are  for 
one  and  the  same  thing. 

"The  authenticity  of  the  words  inclosed  in  brackets  has  been 
a  subject  of  great  doubt  and  dispute. 

"  As  the  sense  is  complete,  and  the  connection  with  what 
goes  before  and  what  follows  is  more  clear,  and  better  pre- 
served without  them;  and  as  the  words  in  dispute,  supposing 
them  to  be  genuine,  are  not  applicable  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
trinity;  for  as  Beza  on  the  passage  justly  remarks — 'These 
three,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  one  in  consent,  as  if 
they  were  only  one  witness;  but  concerning  their  unity  in  sub- 
stance, that,  as  it  appears  to  me,  is  not  treated  of  in  this  place.' 
And  to  the  same  purpose  Calvin  says,  '  The  apostle  in  declar- 
ing these  three  are  one  does  not  refer  to  their  essence,  but  to 
their  consent,  as  if  he  should  say,  the  Father,  his  eternal  Word, 
and  the  Spirit,  wuth  one  consenting  voice,  do  equally  bear  tes- 
timony to  Christ;  and  there  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Father, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITr.  123 

But  taken  in  connexion  with  the  rest  of  John's 
writings,  even  admitting  its  authenticity,  it  will  be 
nothing  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
The  grand  object  of  the  apostle,  as  he  has  said,  was 
to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God, 
(John  XX.  31,  and  1  John  v.  13.) 

The  gentleman  also  refers  to  the  passage,  "  They 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  one  of  the  very  last 
which  should  be  resorted  to,  to  prove  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity. 

Prayer  by  Mr.  Plummer. 


Word,  and  Spirit,  are  said  to  be  one  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  it  is  afterwards  said  that  the  blood,  water  and  spirit  are 
one;'  and  as,  besides  this,  there  are  some  internal  and  inci- 
dental marks,  which  render  the  words  very  much  suspected;  I 
cannot,  therefore,  but  agree  with  Luther,  Zwinglius,  Bullinger 
and  Erasmus,  that  the  words  in  the  brackets  ought  not  to  be 
admitted  into  the  text,  more  especially  as  they  arc  not  found 
in  any  of  the  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  except  only  one 
which  is  of  doubtful  authority." 


124  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA^S 

Thursday  morning,  Jan,  20. 
MR.  M^CALLA. 

It  should  be  recollected  that  in  the  course  of  half 
an  hour,  all  arguments  camiot  be  answered,  and  all 
texts  examined  and  considered.  Keep  this  in  mmd, 
and  beware  of  taking  as  conclusive,  every  expression 
of  my  opponent,  which  may  not  receive  from  me 
immediate  attention.  I  have  quoted  many  texts 
which  have  not  been  noticed  at  all  by  my  antagonist. 

Among  the  passages  which  I  referred  to  yesterday, 
was  that  of  1  John  v.  7.  "  There  be  three  which 
bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father .^  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost. ^^  There  has  been  much  disputing 
about  this  text. — I  believe  it  to  be  genume,  for  the 
following  reasons; — 1.  St.  Jerome  tells  us  plauily, 
that  he  found  out  how  it  had  been  adulterated,  mis- 
translated and  omitted,  on  purpose  to  elude  the  truth. 
2.  The  divines  of  Louvain,  having  compared  many 
Lathi  copies,  found  this  text  wanting  in  only  five  of 
them,  and  R.  Stephens  fomid  it  retained  in  nine  of 
sixteen  ancient  manuscripts  which  he  used.  3.  It  is 
certainly  quoted  twice  by  St.  Cyprian,  who  wrote 
before  the  Council  of  Nice,  and  also  by  TertuUian.* 
Dr.  Clarke,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  believed,  when  he 
tells  us  that  it  was  never  cited  by  any  of  the  Latins 


*  The  connexion  of  the  Father  in  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  in 
the  Comforter,  makes  three  cohering  the  one  from  the  other, 
which  three  are  one. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  125 

before  St.  Jerome.  4.  The  sense  is  not  perfect  with- 
out it,  there  being  a  contrast  with  three  witnesses  in 
heaven  to  three  upon  earth — the  Father,  the  Word, 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  testimony  is  called  the 
witness  of  God,  and  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the 
blood,  which  being  administered  by  the  church  upon 
earth,  is  called  the  witness  of  men. 

The  importance  of  this  text,  makes  my  opponent 
declare  it  to  be  interpolated.  At  one  time  he  says 
this  book  is  his  creed,  and  he  believes  every  word  in 
it  to  be  true ;  but  when  I  tell  you  any  thing  about 
the  three  witnesses,  he  tells  you  this  is  reasoning 
about  unauthenticated  or  doubtful  texts.  Dr.  Priestly 
thought  Paul  was  not  a  good  reasoner — a  liberty 
very  common  with  Unitarians.  With  them  the 
wisdom  of  man  is  better  authority  than  the  word  of 
God.  My  opponent  tells  you  most  of  our  learned 
Presbyterian  doctors  disagree  about  this  text — that 
doctors  of  divinity  will  differ — that  there  are  great 
difficulties  among  Presbyterians.  They  appear  to  be 
almost  as  bad  reasoners  as  himself,  and  as  great 
interpolaters  as  St.  John. 

He  manifestly  intended  to  make  you  believe  that 
a  new  edition  is  a  new  Confession  of  Faith.  In  the 
book  of  discipline  of  the  new  edition,  the  forms  of 
the  proceedings  of  Church  Courts  are  given  some- 
what more  in  detail;  but  as  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  the  Catechism,  the  Forms  of  Church  Govern- 
ment, and  the  Directions  for  Worship,  there  is  not  one 
single  iota  of  alteration.  Among  doctors  there  may 
be  greater  changes.  "  If  some  go  out  from  us,  it  is 
because  they  were  not  of  us." 
11* 


126 

My  opponent  has  been  the  first  to  go  out  of  the 
received  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  He  has  gone 
from  the  Bible  to  our  great  men,  some  of  whom  do 
not  believe  in  the  authenticity  of  John  v.  7.  Does 
he  know  that  he  is  introducing  weapons,  with  the 
use  of  Avhich  he  is  unacquainted?  Hitherto  you 
have  observed  that  our  English  Bible  appeared  suf- 
ficient for  both  parties,  and  he  has  been  particularly 
clamorous  in  his  praises  of  it,  and  in  boastful  reli- 
ance on  it,  and  in  incessant  accusations  against  our 
doctrines  as  having  no  support  in  it.  We  have 
thought  the  English  Bible  full  of  evidence  that  there 
is  a  triune  God,  and  we  have  at  last  produced  a  text 
at  which  my  opponent  is  obliged  to  start  and  fish 
after  critics  and  Greek  manuscripts  to  refute  its  inspi- 
ration. I  call  on  you  to  witness,  that  my  opponent 
is  the  first  to  open  a  field  for  which  he  is  not  quali- 
fied. After  this,  we  must  treat  the  original  Scrip- 
tures as  the  standard,  since  my  opponent,  like  Mr. 
Campbell,  and  Mt.  Kneeland,  and  the  Shakers,  and 
the  Mormonites,  must  have  a  new  English  Bible. 

My  antagonist  has  found  out  that  Presbyterians 
do  not  agree  among  themselves,  as  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.  Some,  he  tells  you,  believe  in  three 
essences — others  in  three  modes  of  existence — three 
attributes,  three  offices,  three  faculties,  three  opera- 
tions of  the  Divine  Bemg,  &c.,  &c.,  &:c.  To  Trinita- 
rians, it  will  hardly  be  necessary  to  say,  that  he  is 
here  stating  what  cannot  be  substantiated.  Those 
who  believe  in  three  essences  are  Tritheists — ^be- 
lievers in  three  Gods  !  As  much  Atheists  as  if  they 
worshipped   thirty   thousand.     The   Sahellian  be- 


PUBLIC  DEB.ATE  OX  THE  TRINITY.  127 

lieves  the  three  persons  to  be  one  person,  that  is, 
that  the  one  person  has  three  offices.  The  Arian 
considers  Jesiis  Christ  a  sort  of  God,  but  not  equal 
-with  the  Father ;  and  the  Socinian  worships  Jesus 
Christ  as  a  mere  man.  The  worship  of  all  these  Ls 
idolatry.  They  are  forsaking  the  true  God,  and 
making  unto  themselves  idols.  We  say  three  per- 
sons in  one  Divine  Essence.  We  are  satisfied  with 
the  Bible  as  it  is.  My  opponent  may  endeavor  to 
get  rid  of  one  text  here,  and  another  there,  and  a 
third  yonder,  in  the  Hebrew,  Greek  and  English 
Scriptures,  which  he  says  are  contradicted  by  twenty- 
five  others  of  an  opposite  doctrine ;  but  as  for  us 
poor  Trinitarians,  we  believe  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion in  the  Bible  at  all,  but  that  all  Scripture  was 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  that  all  is  alike  in- 
fallible, as  all  is  certainly  profitable. 

My  opponent  worships  Jesus  Christ  as  a  created 
being ;  yet  Dr.  Priestly,  who  is  the  Father  of  my 
opponent's  doctrine  in  this  comitry,  charges  home 
the  crime  of  idolatry  upon  those  who  worship  a 
mere  creatm'e.  My  opponent  tells  us  that  he  wor- 
ships this  creature  because  God  has  commanded  us 
to  worship  the  Lamb  of  God,  but  Dr.  Priestly  de- 
clares the  worship  of  Christ  to  be  a  ^-modern  Christian 
idolatry."  Mr.  Kinkade  insists  that  when  the  old  man 
is  spoken  of  with  hair  as  white  as  wool,  it  is  to  be 
literally  understood.  So  when  he  is  commanded  to 
worship  the  Lamb  of  God,  he  should  worship  one 
who  has  white  wool  literally.  But  Christians  wor- 
ship God  without  body,  parts,  or  passions,  and  a 
Lamb  of  God  which  thinks  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 


128  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

with  God.  A  character  less  than  this,  God  never 
commanded  us  to  worship,  for  that  would  be  to  en- 
join idolatry.  But  he  has  still  required  that  we 
should  honor  the  Lamb  of  God  as  we  honor  the 
Father. 

But,  says  my  opponent,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with  Mr.  Kmkade.  This  is  the  course  they  have  al- 
ways pursued  towards  their  friends  m  adversity. 
Until  Mr.  Kneeland  became  an  avowed  Atheist,  they 
clung  to  him  as  did  their  brethren  to  Simon  Magus 
of  old.  He  was  often  obliged  to  beg  the  immense 
crowd  who  attended  at  Lombard  street  in  the  morn- 
ing, not  to  go  to  Callowhill  street  in  the  afternoon, 
in  order  that  those  who  had  not  been  able  to  hear 
him  in  the  morning  might  be  accommodated  in  the 
afternoon.  While  he  possessed  such  immense  in- 
fluence, men  would  follow  after  him.  But  when  it 
was  ascertained  that  he  had  been  smuggling  bomiets 
— that  he  had  been  cheating  the  revenue — his  popu- 
larity and  his  friends  forsook  him  together.  Those 
who  had  before  been  his  most  ardent  admirers,  would 
pass  by  his  store  with — "0,  don't  let  us  go  in  there !" 
— They  forsook  Mr.  Kneeland  and  went  after  "Bro- 
ther Plummer!"  And  if  Mr.  Plummer  should  be 
detected  in  any  similar  act  of  dishonesty,  their  friend- 
ship for  him  would  be  equally  transitory.  Let  him 
beware ! 

T  always  distrust,  the  professions  of  such  men. 
Each  gets  a  new  religion  as  fast  as  their  leaders 
make  Bibles.  Dr.  Priestly  must  have  a  new  Bible — 
so  also  Alexander  Campbell — and  I  suppose  we 
shall  soon  have  one  from  "  Brother  Plummer"  also. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  129 

In  Alexander  Campbell's  New  Testament,  compiled 
from  Doddridge,  M'Knight  and  Campbell  of  Scot- 
land, though  in  his  preface  he  promised  to  make  it 
conformable  to  their  views,  it  was  according  to  his 
own  views  and  not  of  any  of  those  men. 

My  opponent  is  contmually  asking  why  was  not 
our  Bible  written  so  ?  and  so  ?  and  so  ?  Why  was 
not  the  word  Trinity  used  ?  I  suppose  it  was  not 
used  because  it  seemed  good  to  God  to  express  the 
doctrine  in  other  words,  and  I  suppose  the  word 
Unity  was  omitted  for  the  same  reason.  It  appears 
that  many  Unitarians  are  averse  to  our  Bible,  be- 
cause the  great  and  eternal  Qod  chose  to  write  his 
own  truths  in  his  own  way,  without  consulting  my 
opponent  or  any  of  his  brethren.  They  sometimes 
speak  as  if  the  plural  number  was  used  by  the  Crea- 
tor, to  denote  a  Council  of  Creatures  with  which  he 
chose  to  deliberate.  My  opponent  seems  angry,  be- 
cause he  was  not  elected  to  that  imaginaiy  house, 
and  is  determined,  like  Monsieur  Thiers,  in  France, 
to  find  fault  with  every  state  paper  which  issues  from 
the  Guizot  Cabinet.  It  appears  to  be  a  mere  contest 
between  the  outs  and  the  ins,  in  which  I  confess  that 
I  think  the  former  will  be  worsted.  Christians  are 
perfectly  satisfied  with  the  Bible,  before  it  receives 
a  touch  of  improvement  from  brother  Kneeland, 
brother  Plummer,  Alexander  Campbell,  the  Shakers, 
or  the  Mormonites.  To  us  it  is  sweeter  than  honey 
from  the  comb,  because  it  was  written,  not  by  the 
old  serpent  or  his  children,  but  by  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost. 

The  faults  which  he  finds  with  our  Bible,  for  not 


130  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

being  written  in  such  a  way  as  he  would  have  in- 
dited, reminds  one  of  the  conversation  between  the 
Christian  and  Philosopher,  about  the  evidence  of  a 
Great  first  cause,  as  exhibited  in  the  works  of  crea- 
tion. Sitting  under  an  oak,  surrounded  with  vines, 
the  Philosopher  asked,  how  could  an  infinitely  wise 
Creator  have  suspended  small  acorns  upon  the 
mighty  oak,  and  attached  weighty  pumpkins  to  a 
slender  vine  ?  Just  at  that  moment,  the  Christian, 
observing  that  an  acorn  had  fallen  upon  the  Philoso- 
pher's head,  praised  the  wisdom  and  mercy  of  God, 
in  making  it  an  acorn  instead  of  a  pumpkin !  It  is  a 
dangerous  thing  for  ignorant  and  depraved  worms 
to  challenge  the  God  of  Creation  or  Revelation.  The 
Divine  Redeemer  is  a  Rock,  upon  which  he  who 
falls  shall  be  broken,  but  upon  whomsoever  it  shall 
fall  it  shall  grind  him  to  powder  ! 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  131 

MR.  PLUMMER,  after  prayer,  said, 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, 

I  did  not  intend  to  be  understood  as  denying  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  I  have  no  recollection 
of  having  made  any  such  declaration.  I  did  not  deny 
the  inspiration  of  5th  and  7th  of  John.  I  said  that 
many  Trinitarians  had  given  it  up  as  of  doubtful 
authenticity,  and  that  learned  critics  considerd  it 
an  interpolation.  I  have  no  disposition  to  throw 
doubt  upon  the  passage,  except  so  far  as  that  doubt 
is  well  founded.  The  gentleman,  in  introducing  the 
passage,  made  a  passing  remark  as  to  its  authen- 
ticity. I  have  no  objection  to  admitting  the  pas- 
sage as  genuine,  so  far  as  the  argument  of  the  text 
is  concerned.  It  has  been  thought  by  many  Trini- 
tarians to  be  an  insurmountable  argument  in  sup- 
port of  their  theory,  but  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  rest  of  John's  writings,  his  true  meaning  will  be 
seen  to  have  been  very  diiferent.  The  evident  ob- 
ject of  the  apostle,  in  this  text,  was  to  show  that 
"  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  In  the  verse 
but  one  immediately  preceding,  he  inquires,  "  Who 
is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that  believ- 
eth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  ?"  He  then,  as  fol- 
lows, produces  the  evidences  of  his  being  the  Son  of 
God.  "  This  is  he  that  came  [into  public  life  or 
ivas  manifested  to  be  the  Son  of  God]  by  ivater  and 
blood,  even  Jesus  Christ."     That  by  water,  is  meant 


132  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLAV 

his  baptism,  see  John  i.  31.  "  And  I  knew  him  not: 
but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  there- 
fore am  I  come  baptizing  with  water,''^  And  at 
his  baptism  there  came  a  voice  from  heaven  saying, 
this  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased. 
But  for  fm'ther  proof  he  adds,  "  Not  by  water  only, 
but  by  water  and  blood,^^  or  suffering  and  death; 
for  his  suffering  unto  blood  and  death  followed  his 
baptism,  with  abundant  evidence  of  his  being  the 
Son  of  God;  for  all  the  ancient  prophecies  of  the 
Messiah  and  his  sufferings  were  fulfilled  m  him; 
and  his  accusers  said  unto  him,  "  art  thou  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Blessed?  And  Jesus  said  I  am.^' 
Mark  xiv.  61,  G2.  Moreover,  the  three  hours  dark- 
ness bear  witness ;  and  when  they  "  saw  the  earth- 
quake, and  those  things  that  were  done,  they  feared 
greatly,  saying,  "  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  GodJ^ 
Matt,  xxvii.  54.  David  speaking  of  him  in  Psalm 
xvi.,  saith,  "  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One 
to  see  corruption.'^  See  also  Acts  xiii.  35.  If  he 
had  not  been  the  Holy  One,  but  an  impostor,  God 
would  not  have  prevented  his  seeing  corruption  by 
raising  him  from  the  dead ;  therefore  his  resurrec- 
tion is  an  infallible  proof  of  his  being  the  Son  of 
God;  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  holmess,  by  the  resurrec- 
tion from  the  dead.''''  Rom.  i.  4.  Hence  we  see 
the  propriety  of  the  apostle  in  mentioning  that  he 
came  by  water  and  blood,  as  a  proof  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God.  But  he  adds  for  a  third  evidence  that 
"the  Spirit  beareth  witness,  because  the  Spirit  is 
truth."     The  Spirit  bore  witness  that  Jesus  was  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  133 

Son  of  God,  not  only  by  his  7'esurrection,  but  also 
at  his  baptism;  for  "John  bare  record,  saying,  I 
saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove, 
and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I  knew  him  not :  but 
he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said 
unto  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he 
which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost :  and  I  saw, 
and  bear  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  GodP  John 
i.  32—34.  The  apostle  having  mentioned  that  this  is 
he  who  came  by  water  and  bloody  even  Jesus  Christ, 
and  that  the  Spirit  beareth  witness — further  adds, 
"For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven, 
(/.  e.  in  the  the  church)  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost :  and  these  three  are  one." 

For  the  Father's  witness  that  Jesus  is  his  Son, 
see  Mark  i.  11.  "And  there  came  a  voice  from 
heaven,  saying,  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased:''^  again,  "There  came  a  voice 
out  of  the  cloud,  saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son; 
hear  him."  Luke  ix.  35.  of  which  Peter  saith, 
"for  he  received  from  God  the  Father,  honor  and 
glory,  when  there  came  such  a  voice  to  him  from 
the  excellent  glory,  this  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased.  And  this  voice  which  came 
from  heaven  we  heard  when  we  were  with  him  in 
the  holy  mount."  2  Pet.  i.  17,  18.  Hence  Jesus 
said,  "  There  is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me ; 
and  I  know  that  the  witness  which  he  witnesseth  of 
me  is  true."  John  v.  32.  And  again,  "  The  Fa- 
ther himself,  which  hath  sent  me,  hath  borne  wit- 
ness of  me.'^  Verse  37.  "If  ye  receive  the  wit- 
\2 


134  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

ness  of  men^  the  witness  of  God  is  greater."  1 
John  V.  9. 

The  Word,*  constantly  declared  himself  to  be 
the  Son  of  God ;  and  said,  "  Though  I  bare  record 
of  myself,  yet  my  record  is  true."  John  viii.  14. 
Again,  "  I  am  one  that  bare  witness  of  mi/self,  and 
the  Father  that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me." 
Verse  18.  He  also  uniformly  testified  that  he  ''came 
forth  from  the  Father,''  Ch.  xvi.  28,  and  that  God 
was  his  Father,  which  is  in  the  strongest  manner 
declaring  himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God. 

The  Holy  Ghost,  or  Spirit,  also  beareth  record 
that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  not  only  at  his  bap- 
tism, and  resurrection,  as  I  have  spoken,  but  by  the 
Tniracles  he  wrought,  John  v.  36.  and  the  wisdom, 
by  which  he  spake,  vii.  40 — 46,  through  the  Spirit. 
Again  he  saith,  "  when  the  comforter  is  come,  whom 
I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father, 
he  shall  testify  of  me."  Ch.  xv.  2Q.  Thus  these 
three  infallible  witnesses  testify,  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

''And  these  three  are  one'' — one  in  their  testi- 
mony: not  one  person;  and  John  could  not  mean 
that  they  three  were  one  God,  for  that  would  destroy 
what  he  was  labouring  to  prove ;  i,  e.  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God ;  for  if  he  is  the  anointed 
Son  of  God,  he  is  not  the  God  he  is  the  anointed  of; 
therefore  to  say  the  Father  and  Son,  the  anomted 


*  "  His  name  is  called,  The  Word  of  God."    Rev.  xix.  13. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  135 

and  the  one  that  anointed  him,  are  one  person,  God, 
or  Being,  is  contradicting  the  Scriptures,  and  an 
absolute  absurdity  ;  not  to  say  a  mystery.  Hence 
their  being  one,  must  be  the  oneness  or  agreement  in 
their  record,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

The  gentleman  intimated,  that  I  had  ridiculed  the 
three  witnesses  spoken  of  by  John.  This  is  incor- 
rect. I  reasoned,  that  one  man  could  not  be  pro- 
perly called  three — that  if  a  man  was  brought  into 
court,  they  could  not  call  in  his  soul  as  a  second  wit- 
ness, and  his  spirit  as  a  third.  And  yet  this  is  the 
three-in-one  person  which  has  been  brought  forward 
in  this  discussion,  to  prove  the  doctrme  of  the  Trinity. 
I  wish  the  gentleman  distinctly  to  answer  —  If  the 
three  that  bear  witness  are  only  one  being,  how  can 
they  be  called  three  witnesses  ? 

The  gentleman  denies  that  there  has  been  any 
alteration  in  their  Confession  of  Faith.  I  called  on 
Mr.  Kay,  the  book-seller,  and  he  told  me  there  had 
been  a  new  one  published.  I  accordingly  procured 
a  copy,  the  title  page  of  which  reads — "  Constitution 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States,  con- 
taining the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Catechisms,  and 
Directory  for  the  Worship  of  God ;  together  with  the 
Plan  of  Discipline,  as  amended  and  ratified  by  the 
General  Assembly,  at  their  session  in  May,  1841." 
I  had  understood  the  Methodists  could  amend  theirs 
once  in  four  years,  and  supposed,  from  the  title  page 
of  this,  that  the  Presbyterian  Confession  underwent 
a  similar  periodical  revisal.  The  gentleman,  how- 
ever, declares  that  the  only  changes  relate  to  Church 
Discipline,  and  I  therefore  stand  corrected. 


136  PLUMMER  AND  MX'ALLA's 

[Hev.  Mr.  Cooper,  (Methodist)  here  remarked  that 
he  had  no  recollection  that  their  Articles  of  Faith  had 
at  any  time  been  changed  or  amended. 

Hon,  Geo.  G.  Leiper,  (one  of  the  Moderators)  said 
interruptions  of  this  kind  were  out  of  order.  If  any 
explanations  were  to  be  made,  they  should  be  de- 
ferred until  the  adjournment,  at  12  o'clock.] 

Mr.  Plummer.  If  then  there  have  been  no 
amendments,  ought  such  an  intimation  to  be  given 
on  the  title  page  ? 

The  gentleman  tells  us  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  has  been  always  taught,  from  the  days  of 
Moses,  but  he  has  not  brought  forward  a  single  text 
to  prove  the  assertion.  We  have  given  the  positive 
declarations  of  Moses,  the  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  to  prove  that  there  is  but  one  God,  one 
Creator.  Now  I  ask  the  gentleman  for  one  plain, 
positive  passage  from  holy  writ,  to  prove  the  exist- 
ence of  "three  persons  in  the  Divine  essence." 

Permit  me  again  to  say  that  I  have  never  denied 
the  inspiration  of  the  passage  from  John.  But  I  ask 
for  evidence  in  this  book  that  these  three  witnesses 
mean  one  Being  ?  If  John  by  three  witnesses  meant 
"three  persons  in  the  Divine  essence,"  why  did  not 
John  say  so?  But  the  gentleman  says  that  God 
will  put  down  such  blasphemy.  I  thought  he  came 
here  to  show  that  we  ought  to  be  Trinitarians — to 
prove  to  us  that  this  doctrine  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible.  We  believe  all  that  is  taught  in  this  holy 
book  and  are  satisfied  with  it,  without  any  additions. 
The  gentleman  says  it  is  sweet  as  honey.  But  does 
he  believe  that  if  I  had  been  predestinated  to  preach 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  137 

as  I  do,  that  I  am  for  so  doing  to  be  for  ever  damned  ? 
Does  he  not  beheve  that  we  were  foreordained  to  be 
the  very  heretics  he  represents  us  to  be  ?  The  gentle- 
man has  to  eat  some  bitter  pills.  He  thinks  my 
palate  has  become  vitiated.  I  must  confess  I  have 
no  appetite  for  such  doctrines. 

He  has  said  that  we  beUeve  Jesus  Christ  to  be 
a  mere  man.  I  have  never  said  this,  nor  have  I 
ever  advocated  any  such  doctrine.  For  the  twenty- 
five  years  that  I  have  preached  in  this  vicinity,  let 
him  produce  a  single  instance  m  which  I  have  made 
any  such  statement. 

I  referred  you  yesterday  to  the  galloping  bishops 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  The  gentleman 
says  he  formerly  had  a  partiality  for  these  old 
bishops,  but  that  he  has  now  given  it  up.  Suppose 
I  should  say  he  has  not  given  it  up.  It  would  be 
just  as  reasonable  as  for  the  gentleman  to  persist  in 
his  unauthorised  charges  against  us.  I  have  told 
you  that  I  was  never  a  follower  of  Mr.  Kneeland, 
nor  in  any  way  connected  with  Mr.  Kneeland ;  but 
he  still  persists  in  repeating  the  charge.  If  this  is 
the  Avay  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  I  am 
afraid  we  shall  have  a  dispute  without  being  con- 
verted. 

The  gentleman  says  we  Avorship  the  Lamb,  and 
therefore  argues  that  we  are  idolaters.  The  heavenly 
host  worships  the  Lord  God,  and  the  Lamb  who 
hath  redeemed  us  unto  God  by  his  blood.  Rev.  v. 
8,  12,  13.  We  worship  the  Son,  not  as  the  Father 
but  as  the  Son,  for  so  the  Father  commands  :  "  When 
he  bringeth  his  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith 
12* 


138  PLUMMER  AND  M^C ALLANS 

let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  hmi."  I  hope  all 
of  us  shall  at  last  be  so  happy  as  to  be  foimd  with 
the  heavenly  host,  worshipping  God  and  the  Lamb. 
For  we  must  all  come  to  Christ  and  confess  him  as 
the  Son  of  God.  "  There  is  no  other  name  given 
under  heaven  among  men  whereby  we  must  be 
saved." 

The  gentleman  says,  if  Mr.  Plunnner  should  cheat 
the  United  States,  he  might  be  exposed  if  he  should 
become  an  Atheist. — This  is  about  as  pertinent  as 
some  of  his  hits  of  yesterday,  about  the  <' broad 
brim,"  and  weavers  and  shoemakers !  The  gentle- 
man cannot  endure  working-men.  We  have  always 
considered  it  as  one  of  the  first  traits  of  a  gentle- 
man to  be  able  to  procure  by  his  own  industry  an 
honest  livelihood.  But  the  gentleman,  like  the  Priests 
of  old,  would  rather  say,  "  Put  me  I  pray  thee  into 
one  of  the  priest's  offices,  that  I  may  eat  a  piece  of 
Bread."  1  Sam.  ii.  36.  Our  Lord  was  talked  about 
as  a  carpenter's  son,  and  now  ice  are  denounced  as 
weavers  and  shoemakers.  But  is  this  argument? 
Paul  worked  at  tent-making — therefore  Paul  must 
be  sneered  at  as  a  mechanic !  As  Peter  and  John 
were  fishermen,  the  gentleman  would  say,  "  Away 
with  these  fishermen ! — We  want  galloping  bish- 
ops, who  can  make  trinities  for  us !  We  want  no- 
thmg  to  do  with  working-men !"  Is  this  to  be  tole- 
rated among  the  hard-handed  working  population 
of  Delaware  coimty  ? 

The  gentleman  says  I  have  brought  twenty-five 
texts  against  one.  Let  him  correct  his  notes.  I  said 
in  relation   to  the  verse  quoted  by  the  gentleman, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  139 

<^  Let  us  make  man/'  &c.,  that  Moses  had,  m  the 
very  next  verse,  repeatedly  used  the  smgular  pronoim, 
Avhen  speakmg  of  the  same  person — that  in  substi- 
tutmg  the  pronoun  for  the  names  of  Lord,  God,  &c. 
he  had  used  the  smgular  pronoun  a  hundred  times 
to  one  of  the  plural.  And  I  then  asked,  if  in  a  last 
will  and  testament,  a  word  should  occiu  twenty-five 
times  in  the  singular,  and  only  once  in  the  'plural, 
would  there  be  any  doubt  about  the  real  meaning 
of  the  mstrument  ? 

Perhaps  I  have  been  knocked  oft'  the  track  in  folio w- 
mg  the  gentleman.  I  have  but  a  few  moments  more 
to  occupy  your  attention  on  this  trip.  On  a  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  5th  chapter  of  John,  it  will  be  appa- 
rent that  the  apostle  could  not  have  meant  by  '•  these 
three  are  one,''  that  they  were  one  and  the  same 
being.  When  we  take  up  an  epistle  to  read,  we 
should  inquire  the  intent  of  the  writer — the  circum- 
stances of  those  to  whom  he  wrote — and  then  we 
can  understand  the  arguments  advanced.  Here  we 
have  John  qualified  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  carry  out 
and  establish  the  glorious  dispensation.  John  was 
directed  to  write.  He  wrote  in  the  Spirit — "  These 
things  write  I  unto  you,  that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God."  Let  it  never 
be  lost  sight  of  that  this  was  the  object  of  the  apos- 
tle in  writing.  The  burthen  of  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing is  to  establish  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Mes- 
siah sent — not  the  God  by  whom  he  was  sent.  But 
to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  John 
repeats  as  his  object  in  writing,  "  But  these  are  writ- 
ten that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 


140 

Son  of  God ;  and  that  believing,  ye  niight  have  Ufe 
through  his  name. 

Paul  corroborates  the  testimony  of  John,  as  to 
the  object  of  their  mission.  He  was  a  persecutor, 
and  in  all  good  conscience,  bound  to  Damascus, 
with  authority  from  the  chief  priests  to  commit  to 
prison  those  Christians  who  called  on  the  name 
of  Jesus.  Saul,  as  Avell  as  the  gentleman,  had  a 
tender  conscience.  At  mid-day  he  saw  a  light 
above  the  brightness  of  the  sun,  shining  round 
about  him ;  and  when  he  had  fallen  to  the  earth,  he 
heard  a  voice  from  heaven,  speaking  unto  him  in  the 
Hebrew  tongue.  And  what  did  the  voice  say  ?  '^  Saul, 
Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ?'^  Saul  answered, 
"Who  art  thou.  Lord?''  Did  Jesus  say,  "I  am  God 
—God  of  God— God  the  Son?"  No.  But,  "I  am 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  thou  persecutest."  "  And 
straightway  he  preached  Christ  in  the  synagogues, 
that  he  is  the  Son  of  God.''''  Now  I  would  ask  the 
gentleman,  with  all  his  learning,  his  Hebrew  and 
Greek — why  did  not  Christ  let  Paul  know  if  he 
was  God  ?  Paul  preached  that  Christ  the  Son  of 
God  died  for  our  sins  accordmg  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  that  he  was  buried  and  rose  again,  according  to 
the  Scriptures.  This  I  believe  and  confess,  for  Paul 
also  says,  that  "  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
shall  bow  and  every  tongue  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRFNITY.  141 


MR.  M'CALLA. 

I  had  better  be  as  rapid  as  possible,  before  my 
opponent  shall  take  another  flight.  Yesterday  he 
poured  contempt  on  hunters,  weavers  and  shoe- 
makers, and  to-day  he  has  turned  out  their  advocate, 
and  tries  to  saddle  me  with  opinions  which  I  never 
expressed.  In  my  remarks,  I  was  the  advocate  of 
shoemakers  and  weavers,  and  gave  my  reasons  for 
being  so.  My  lot  has  always  been  among  the  poor 
Irish  population  of  Philadelphia.  The  very  officers 
of  my  church  have  been  weavers  and  shoemakers. 
I  have  always  delighted  to  be  among  them,  while  I 
have  been  obnoxious  to  the  displeasure  of  the  whole 
corps  of  galloping  bishops.  But  my  opponent  ap- 
pears to  be  so  much  attached  to  them,  and  to  keep 
them  galloping  so  incessantly,  that  I  heard  some  of 
our  audience  express  great  sympathy  for  the  poor 
horses.  My  opponent  appears  to  have  forgotten  the 
good  old  maxim,  that  a  righteous  man  is  merciful 
to  his  beast.  However,  that  belongs  to  the  old 
Bible,  out  of  which  he  and  Mr.  Kneeland,  and  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  are  rapidly  galloping  into  the  Shaker 
and  Mormon  Bibles.  For  my  own  part,  having  been 
born  and  brought  up  in  Kentucky,  I  have  always 
loved  a  horse,  and  learned  to  treat  him  kindly,  which 
may  have  had  some  mfluence  in  keeping  me  from 
joining  the  corps  of  galloping  bishops  to  which  my 
opponent  appears  so  attached. 

With  regard  to  his  insinuations,  that  I  exercise 


142  PLUMMER  AND  m'c ALLANS 

ministerial  functions  for  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre,  I 
will  observe  that  they  come  with  an  ill  grace  from 
the  author  of  them,  against  a  man  who  has  had 
abundant  opportunities  of  making  money,  but  has 
probably  less  of  it  than  any  other  minister  of  the 
same   denomination    in  the   United    States.     Con- 
formably with  his  insinuations  before  this  audience, 
it  has  been  privately  circulated,  that  I  have  received 
twenty  dollars  for  my  late  visit,  and  fifty  dollars  for 
the  present.    It  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  contra- 
dict such  gratuitous  and  invidious  fabrications.    My 
Master  will  always  furnish  me  with  the  means  of 
subsistence,  and  it  is  my  delight  and  privilege  to 
labor  in  his  good  service  without  setting  my  heart 
upon  earthly  rewards.     They  are  so  small  an  affair 
in  my  view,  that  I  should  feel  myself  honored  with 
my  present  privilege,  if  I  had  no  other  sustenance 
during  my  visit  here  than  the  raw  material,  and 
liberty  to  cook  it  myself     This  I  have  been  ac- 
customed to  do  in  the  prairies  of  Texas,  traversed  by 
those  hunters  to  whom  my  opponent  now  appears 
to  have  a  particular  aversion,  on  account  of  the  fall 
of  his  hunter  oracle,  Mr.  Kinkade.     While  he  was 
in  his  glory,  he  could  make  all  his  followers  believe 
that  the  Creator  had  literally  those  members  of  the 
body  which  were  figuratively  ascribed  to  him  in  the 
Bible.  His  absurdities  reminded  me  of  an  old  clergy- 
man in  Kentucky.     One  of  these  furious  literalists 
was  trying  to  proselyte  him,  and  the  old  clergyman 
reasoned  in  this  way  :   Said  he,  «  you  really  believe, 
sir,  that  these  Scriptures,  which  we  understand  as 
figurative,  must  be  literally  interpreted?"  "Yes,  sir, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  143 

I  do,"  said  the  improver.    "  Then,"  said  the  clergy 
man,  "  that  old  lady  mentioned  in  the  Apocalypse 
as  sitting  upon  seven  hills,  must  have  a  large  sitting 
capacity  !" 

It  is  plain  that  Mr.  Kinkade,  Mr.  Plummer,  Alex- 
ander Campbell,  and  Brother  Kneeland,  have  a  sort 
of  piety,  a  sort  of  reverence  for  the  Saviour,  which 
differs  widely  from  that  which  is  written  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  wrought  in  the  hearts  of  his  childi'en. 
Christians  look  upon  him  as  the  highest,  holiest,  and 
best — 

"  The  brightest,  sweetest,  fairest  one, 
That  eyes  have  seen,  or  angels  known ;" 

Whereas  my  opponent  can  speak  of  him  in  an  ir- 
reverent manner,  as  he  has  done  in  this  neighbor- 
hood, as  "a  little  the  best  man  God  ever  made." 
This  he  did  in  a  discussion  with  jNIr.  J.  Smith ;  and 
he  has  also  asserted,  that  "if  Jesus  Christ  be  God, 
the  devil  is  God." 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Exodus,  Mr.  Kinkade  ac- 
knowledges that  Jesus  Christ  calls  himself  the  "I  am 
that  I  am,"  which  title,  like  the  name  Jehovah,  is  a  re- 
duplicate expression  of  existence,  equivalent  to  a  de- 
claration that  he  is  the  Being  Being,  that  is,  that  he 
is  the  self-existent,  independent,  and  eternal  being, 
and  the  author  of  all  being.  In  the  book  of  Revelation 
Mr.  Kinkade  acknowledges  that  it  is  Christ  who  says 
that  he  is  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  "which  is,  and 
which  was,  and  which  is  to  come."  This  is  a  good 
translation  of  the  name  Jehovah,  compounded  of 
verbs  of  existence  and  of  the  title,  "  I  am  that  I 


144  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

am,"  of  similar  import.  If  the  self-existent,  inde- 
pendent, uncreated,  eternal  Being,  and  the  som-ce  of 
all  being,  may  be  received  as  the  Supreme  God, 
then  these  passages  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Supreme  God. 

So  in  the  passage  from  Isaiah  liv.  5 — "Thy 
maker[s]  is  thine  husband[s],  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is 
his  name."  The  church,  here  referred  to  as  the 
bride  of  Christ,  can  no  more  have  two  distinct  hus- 
bands, than  Christ  can  have  two  distinct  churches. 
"As  the  church  is  the  bride ^  the  body^  the  building 
of  God,  and  as  there  is  one  bride,  one  body,  one 
building,  so  is  there,  on  the  other  hand,  one  God, 
who  is  the  Husband  or  Bridegroom,  one  Christ, 
who  is  the  Head,  and  one  God  who  is  the  light  of 
it." 

I  told  you  yesterday,  that  the  passage  from  Reve- 
lation, "Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God  Almighty,"  is  a 
liberal  translation.  Here,  as  in  the  passage  from 
Isaiah,  "Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 
the  whole  earth  is  full  of  his  glory,"  also  referred  to 
yesterday,  the  perfect  number  of  the  Trinity  is 
taken  to  declare  the  manifold  holiness  of  God — "a 
repeated  inter-communion  of  a  three-fold  holiness — 
the  holiness  of  the  Father,  the  holiness  of  the  Son, 
and  the  holiness  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  St.  John  says 
of  the  passage  from  Isaiah,  "These  things  said 
Esaias,  when  he  saw  his  (Christ's)  glory,  and  spake 
of  him,"  thus  affirming  the  presence  and  glory  of 
Christ. 

Christ  is  called  the  only  Divine  Potentate,  (2  Peter 
ii.  1=)     "But  there  were  false  prophets  also  among 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  145 

the  people,  even  as  there  shall  be  false  teachers 
among  you,  who  privily  shall  bring  in  damnable 
heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  [Potentate]  that 
bought  them."  To  prove  that  Christ  is  here  the  only 
Divine  Potentate,  compare  Jude  iv.  where  he  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  "Only  Lord  God  [Divine  Poten- 
tate,] and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  the  Greek  article 
showing  that  there  is  one  person  spoken  of  under 
different  names,  that  is,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  "only  Divine  Potentate,"  a  rule  which  in  1 
Timothy  vi.  15,  applies  equally  to  the  Divine  Father, 
who  is  there  said  to  be  "  the  blessed  and  only  Po- 
tentate, the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords." 

The  expression  in  Jude,  "the  only  Divine  Po- 
tentate and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is  declared  by 
errorists  to  mean  two  persons,  plainly  marked,  as  they 
pretend,  by  the  conjunction  between  them;  but  ac- 
cording to  this,  there  must  be  two  persons  in  Philipi- 
ans  iv.  20,  also — "  Now  unto  God  and  our  Father 
be  glory  for  ever  and  ever."  Does  this  mean  that 
God  is  another  person  from  our  Father  ?  Does  the 
intervening  conjunction  mean  two  persons?  The 
acknowledged  meaning  is,  that  the  glory  is  here 
given  to  God  who  is  our  Father.  So  in  Jude,  the 
meaning  is,  that  the  heretics  there  mentioned,  were 
condeimied  for  "denying  the  only  Lord  God,  who  is 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Thus,  Jude  proves  as 
plainly  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  I^ord 
God,  or  Divine  Potentate,  as  the  epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lipians  proves  that  God  is  our  Father.  The  manner 
of  expression  is  precisely  the  same. 

"  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the 
13 


146  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

ending,  saith  the  Lord,  who  is,  and  was,  and  is  to 
come,  the  Ahnighty.'^  (Rev.  i.  8.)  The  words  Mpha 
and  Omega,  the  first  and  last  letters  of  the  Greek 
alphabet,  "  denote  the  first  cause  and  last  end,  the 
author  and  finisher  of  all  things  in  creation,  pro- 
vidence, and  redemption." — Kinkade,  page  12,  ad- 
mits that  the  text  refers  to  Christ,  for,  says  he,  "  I 
camiot  see  the  propriety  of  saymg  the  Father  is  to 
come."  If  then,  it  is  Christ  who  is  speakmg,  he  has 
a  just  title  to  every  name  and  attribute  spoken  of  in 
the  verse.  He  says,  "  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega — the 
Jilmighty,  therefore  Christ  must  be  the  true  God.'^ 

Solomon  says — "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  be- 
ginning of  Avisdom,  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Holy 
{^Ones\  is  miderstanding."  The  Scriptures  tell  us,  in 
relation  to  our  Divine  Redeemer,  "  By  the  Imow- 
ledge  of  liim  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify 
many;"  and  he  himself  says,  "This  is  life  eternal 
to  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."  These,  therefore,  are  tv/o 
of  the  Holy  Ones,  the  knowledge  of  whom  is  said 
to  be  miderstanding  in  our  text,  and  this  knowledge 
is  equivalent  to  that  fear  of  Jehovah  which  is  said 
to  be  the  beginning  of  wisdom  in  the  first  clause  of 
the  text.  With  sincere  afi"ection  to  the  uumortal 
souls  of  my  hearers,  I  would  put  the  question  to 
their  consciences,  is  blasphemy  agamst  the  Redeemer 
to  be  called  the  fear  of  that  divine  person,  and  is  the 
rejection  of  the  Holy  Ones  a  saving  knowledge  of 
the  Holy  Ones  ?  and  is  this  mad  folly  of  denying  the 
triune  God  of  revelation  a  fulfilment  of  that  wis- 
dom and  of  that  understanding  recognised  in  our  text? 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  147 

MR.  PLUMMER. 

Mr,  Chairman, 

The  gentleman  has,  m  four  or  five  minutes,  en- 
deavored to  show  that  certam  passages  prove  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  If  his  rendering  of  the  pas- 
sage, "  thy  Makers  are  thy  husbands,"  is  to  be  re- 
ceived as  correct,  then  are  there  not  a  plurahty  of 
Creators  and  husbands,  and  must  there  not  also  be  a 
plurality  of  wives  ? 

I  have  no  recollection  of  any  discussion  with  Mr. 
Smith.  There  was  some  talk  of  a  discussion.  I  never 
said  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  little  the  best  man  God 
ever  made.  As  to  saying  that  if  ^*  Jesus  Christ  is 
God,  the  devil  is  God,"  I  may  have  said,  in  re- 
marking upon  the  use  of  the  term  God  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  it  was  applied  to  Christ,  and  also  to  the 
devil.  Is  not  the  devil  called  the  God  of  this  world? 
The  Scriptures  give  this  name  to  angels,  to  men,  to 
dumb  idols,  and  to  the  devil.  Paul  says,  "  the  God  of 
this  world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  who  be- 
lieve not."  Moses  was  called  God — "the  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,  see  I  have  made  thee  a  God  mito  Pha- 
raoh." Exod.  vii.  I.  "Who  is  like  unto  thee,  0 
Lord,  among  the  Gods?"  Exod.  xv.  11.  "Thou 
shalt  not  revile  the  Gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy 
people."  Exod.  xxii.  28.  "  For  the  Lord  your  God, 
is  God  of  Gods."  Deut.  x.  17.  "God  standeth  in 
the  congregation  of  the  mighty ;  he  judgeth  among 


148  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

the  Gods.'^  Psal.  Ixxxii.  1.  Verse  6,  "1  have  said 
ye  are  Gods."  "  Among  the  Gods  there  is  none  Hke 
unto  thee,  0  Lord.''  Psal.  Ixxxvi.  8.  "Worship 
him  all  ye  Gods."  Psal.  xcvii.  7.  Verse  9,  "For 
thou,  Lord,  art  high  above  all  the  earth ;  thou  art 
exalted  far  above  all  Gods." 

I  shall  not  again  go  over  the  AUeghanies  unless 
the  gentleman  renders  it  necessary.  I  should  regret 
to  be  under  the  necessity  of  asking  him  some  serious 
questions.  I  have  repeatedly  said  that  we  are  not 
responsible  for  the  views  of  Kinkade  or  any  other  man. 

We  will  now  again  call  your  attention  to  John. 
We  have  already  shown  that  the  grand  object  of  the 
apostle  was  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the 
Messiah.  John  says,  (1  John  1 — 3,)  "That  which 
we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto  you,  that 
ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us :  and  truly  our 
fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ."  There  were  false  teachers  who  denied  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  and  sought  to  seduce  the  disciples 
from  this  faith.  Hence  the  apostle  saith — "These 
things  have  I  written  unto  you,  concerning  them  that 
seduce  you."  (Chapter  2,  verse  26.)  Again,  (same 
chapter,  21st,  22d  and  23d  verses,)  "  I  have  not  writ- 
ten imto  you,  because  ye  know  not  the  truth ;  but 
because  ye  know  it,  and  that  no  lie  is  of  the  truth. 
Who  is  a  LIAR,  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  ?"  This  is  what  the  gentleman  calls  a  blas- 
phemous question!  "He  is  antichrist  that  denieth 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  W^hosoever  denieth  the 
Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father:  but  he  that 
acknowledgeth  the  Son,  hath  the  Father  also." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  149 

The  gentleman,  in  speaking  of  the  Father  and  Son, 
tells  you  that  they  are  one  God — one  being.  Can 
any  one  more  positively  deny  the  Father  and  the 
Son  than  by  saying  they  are  one  being  ?  He  is  anti- 
christ that  denieth  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

The  gentleman  called  us  by  a  fictitious  name,  at 
our  meeting-house,  and  with  it  amused  himself  and 
his  admirers  for  half  an  hour.  We  will  not  nick- 
name him.  We  will  give  him  a  name  to  which  he 
is  legitimately  entitled — a  scriptural  name — He  is 
Jlntichrist ! 

He  despairs  of  putting  us  down  by  his  own  exer- 
tions. He  says,  "  we  must  look  to  God  !"  But  the 
gentleman's  difficulty  is  with  the  word  of  God — 
not  with  us. — Does  not  the  gentleman's  creed  deny 
any  such  bemg  as  the  Son  of  God,  distinct  from  the 
Father?  "Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath 
7iot  the  Father ;  but  he  that  aclmowledgeth  the  Son 
hath  the  Father  also."  "And  this  is  his  command- 
ment, that  we  should  believe  on  the  name  of  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ."  "Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit, 
but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God ;  because 
many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the  world. 
Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God :  Every  spirit  that 
confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is 
of  God;  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God :  and 
this  is  that  spirit  of  antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard 
that  it  should  come,  and  even  now  aheady  is  it  in 
the  world."  "  We  are  of  God ;  he  that  knoweth  God, 
heareth  us ;  he  that  is  not  of  God,  heareth  not  us. 
Hereby  know  we  the  spirit  of  truth,  and  the  spirit 
13* 


150  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

of  error.  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another :  for  love 
is  of  God ;  and  every  one  that  loveth,  is  born  of  God, 
and  knoweth  God.  He  that  loveth  not,  Imoweth 
not  God,  for  God  is  love.  In'  this  was  manifest  the 
love  of  God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent  his 
only-begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live 
through  him.  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  he  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins.  Beloved,  if  God  so  loved  us, 
we  ought  also  to  love  one  another,"  (iv.  6 — 11.)  "No 
man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time."  Will  the  gentle- 
man say  the  Son  was  never  seen  ?  And  yet  he  says 
that  the  Son  is  that  God  whom  John  says  was  never 
seen  at  any  time.  "  If  we  love  one  another,  God 
dwelleth  in  us,  and  his  love  is  perfected  in  us.  Here- 
by know  we  that  we  dwell  in  him  and  he  in  us, 
because  he  has  given  us  of  his  Spirit ;  and  we  have 
seen,  and  do  testify,  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son,  to 
be  the  Saviour  of  the  world."  Not  that  he  sent  him- 
self! or  a  third  part  of  himself — but  sent  his  Son. 
The  Father  is  spoken  of  as  saving  by  the  Son  whom 
he  hath  sent.  "  Wliosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he  in  God." 

What,  confess  that  he  is  the  Son  of  the  whole  Tri- 
nity ?  the  Son  of  the  Son,  Father,  and  Holy  Ghost  ? 

But  again,  John  v.  1. — "  Whosoever  belie veth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God. — And  whosoever 
is  born  of  God,  overcometh  the  world,  and  this  is 
the  victory  that  overcometh  the  world,  even  our 
faith.  Who  is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but 
he  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.^  This 
is  he  that  came  by  water  and  blood,  even  Jesus 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  151 

Christ ;  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood : 
and  it  is  the  Spirit  that  beareth  witness,  because  the 
Spirit  is  truth."  This  is  he  that  came  into  public 
life,  or  was  made  manifest,  by  water  and  blood.  John 
came  as  his  forerunner  and  said,  "For  this  cause 
have  I  come  baptising  with  water,  that  he  might  be 
made  manifest  unto  Israel." 

All  were  looking  for  him  to  be  made  manifest, 
when,  at  his  baptism,  Jehovah  said — "  This  is  my 
beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  Who 
gives  God  the  he  when  he  says,  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Son,"  but  he  that  denieth  this  record  ?  We  believe 
this  record.  We  go  for  Bible  words — they  are  sweet 
enough  without  acid.  We  want  no  change  nor  addi- 
tion to  the  Father's  testimony. 

"  Not  by  water  only  but  by  water  and  blood." 
— The  antichrists  of  that  day,  said — "Away  with 
him — ^he  teacheth  contrary  to  our  customs."  He 
didn't  hold  to  their  creeds.  They  condemned  him 
to  be  crucified.  He  was  nailed  to  the  cross — the  earth 
quaked — the  sun  was  darkened — and  Jesus  bowed 
his  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  His  enemies  said, 
"  truly  this  was  a  good  man,  tliis  was  the  Son  of 
God."  Thus  the  Lamb  of  God  was  slain,  and  by 
his  own  blood,  ratified  the  new  covenant. 

We  will  not  dwell  on  his  prayer — the  affecting 
scene  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  when  he  sweat, 
as  it  were,  great  drops  of  blood,  and  said,  "  if  possi- 
ble, let  this  cup  pass  from  me — but,  holy  Father,  thy 
will  and  not  mine  be  done."  Did  God  ever  pray? 
This  was  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  He  was 
brought  to  the  cross  and  to  the  tomb.     In  the  tomb 


152  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA^S 

he  saw  not  corruption,  but  was  declared  to  be  the 
Son  of  God,  with  power,  according  to  the  Spirit  of 
hohness,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Tell  me 
that  God  was  raised  from  the  dead  !  that  the  Great 
Jehovah  was  crucified  !  [I  heard  a  clergyman  in  a 
discourse  say  that  he  who  had  given  life,  breath  and 
being,  to  all  things,  died  on  the  cross  between  two 
thieves.]  Nor  was  it  the  mere  manhood  of  Christ, 
as  the  gentleman's  creed  declares.  For  upon  either 
hypothesis,  they  would  annihilate  the  Son  of  God. 
This  is  the  Lamb  v/ho  has  redeemed  us  by  his  blood, 
and  is  now  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  This  is  he 
who  came  by  blood. 

Being  thus  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  power, 
Christ  shed  forth  the  promised  Comforter  upon  his 
disciples,  at  the  day  of  Pentecost — ^the  Spirit  received 
from  his  Father — ^by  which  they  went  forth  every 
where  preaching  the  word,  the  Lord  working  with 
them,  confirming  the  word,  with  gifts  of  healing, 
and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  thousands  by 
the  Spirit  of  truth  were  converted  to  God. 

Thus  by  the  wafer,  the  blood,  and  the  Spirit,  is 
Jesus  Christ  proved  to  be  the  Son  of  the  living  God. 
There  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Fa- 
ther, the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three 
are  one.  We  have  noticed  that  Jesus,  or  the  Word, 
imiformly  speaks  of  himself  as  the  Son  of  God.  Let 
the  gentleman  point  to  the  passage  where  he  says, 
"  I  am  God  Almighty."  When  the  Comforter  came 
down  it  empowered  the  apostles  to  be  fishers  of  men, 
and  they  went  forth  baptising  them  that  believed,  and 
administering  the  cup  of  blessing,  which  is  the  bloo^ 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  153 

of  Christ.  This  baptism  and  this  communion  are 
perpetuated  in  the  Church,  as  standing  witnesses  that 
Jesus  is  the  Mediator.  "  There  are  three  that  bear 
witness  on  the  earth,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  blood,  and  these  agree  in  one," — that  is,  one  in 
testimony  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God. 

"  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the  witness 
of  God  is  greater :  for  this  is  the  witness  of  God, 
which  he  hath  testified  of  his  Son.  He  that  behev- 
eth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself: 
he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath  made  him  a  liar  ;  be- 
cause he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of 
his  Son.  And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given 
to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.  He  that 
hath  the  Son,  hath  life,  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son 
of  God,  hath  not  life.  These  things  have  I  written 
unto  you  that  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God ; 
that  ye  may  know  that  ye  have  eternal  life,  and  that 
ye  may  believe  on  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God." 

"And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may 
know  him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  him  that  is 
true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true 
God  and  eternal  life." 

My  opponent  has  told  you  that  the  words  "  true 
God  and  eternal  life,"  refer  to  Christ.  Do  they 
allude  to  him  who  is  twice  before  in  the  same  verse 
called  the  true  God,  or  to  him  who  is  twice  in  the 
same  verse  called  the  Son  of  God.  If  the  latter,  you 
make  the  apostle  contradict  himself,  and  Jesus  Christ 
also,  who  says — "  This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might 
know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 


154 

thou  hast  sent."  Therefore  to  say  that  John  calls 
Jesus  Christ  the  only  true  God  and  eternal  life, 
would  be  saying  that  he  has  given  his  Lord  the  lie. 
But,  that  the  beloved  disciple  is  not  guilty  of  this 
censure  we  may  clearly  see  if  we  attend  to  the  plain 
import  of  his  words.  The  literal  reading  of  the  pas- 
sage is — we  know  that  the  Messiah  is  come,  and 
hath  given  us  an  understanding  that  we  may  know 
GOD  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  GOD  that  is  true, 
even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  \i,  e.  GOD  that  is 
true]  is  the  true  GOD,  and  eternal  life.  Compare 
this  with  the  words  of  Christ,  "  this  is  life  eternal, 
that  they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  GOD,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  We  have 
now  gone  through  with  John. 

We  will  now  give  the  gentleman  two  minutes  of 
Paul.  (Galatians  i.  3.)  "Grace  be  with  you  and 
peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Why  did  not  Paul  say,  "  Grace  be 
with  you  from  the  Trinity,"  or,  "  from  the  Triune 
God?" 

"  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him 
that  called  you  into  the  grace  of  Christ  imto  another 
gospel:  Which  is  not  another;  but  there  be  some 
that  trouble  you,  and  would  pervert  the  gospel  of 
Christ.  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which 
we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed. 
As  we  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  77ian 
preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye  have 
received,  let  him  be  accursed."     " For  it  pleased  God 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  1  55 

to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  him 
among  the  heathen." 

I  told  you  I  had  done  with  John,  but  I  must  take 
you  into  another  part  of  his  epistles.  "  Grace  be 
with  you,  mercy  and  peace  from  God  our  Father, 
and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Fa- 
ther, in  truth  and  love. — And  this  is  love,  that  we 
walk  after  his  commandments.  This  is  the  com- 
mandment, That  as  ye  have  heard  from  the  begin- 
ning ye  should  walk  in  it.  For  many  deceivers  are 
entered  into  the  world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  This  is  a  deceiver  and 
an  antichrist.  Look  to  yourselves,  that  we  lose  not 
those  things  which  we  have  wrought,  but  that  we 
receive  a  full  reward.  Whosoever  transgresseth, 
and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not 
God :  He  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he 
hath  both  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  there  come 
any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God 
speed."     (2  John.) 

The  object  of  the  apostles  in  writing,  it  will  be 
seen,  was  to  caution  the  disciples  against  those  de- 
ceivers, who  preach  any  other  gospel  than  that 
which  confesses  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God. 
Paul  says,  "Let  them  be  accursed;"  and  John  says, 
"  Bid  them  not  God  speed,  lest  ye  be  partakers  of 
their  evil  deeds.  For  he  is  an  antichrist  that  de- 
nieth  the  Father  and  the  Son." 

Adjourned  to  1  o'clock,  P.  M. 


156  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Thursday,  1  P.  M. 
MR.  M'CALLA. 

I  have  been  requested  to  make  some  further  ex- 
planations relative  to  the  Articles  of  Faith  of  the 
Methodist  Church.  I  am  desired  to  say,  that  the 
amendments  relate  entirely  to  matters  of  jurispru- 
dence. I  knew  how  it  stood  with  our  own  church, 
and  I  now  have  it  in  my  power  to  make  this  state- 
ment on  behalf  of  the  Methodists. 

INIy  opponent  has  denied  that  he  spoke  of  Christ 
contemptuously,  as  "  a  little  the  best  man  that  God 
ever  made ;"  and  he  has  also  denied  that  he  said 
"  if  Christ  was  God,  the  devil  was  God."  Yet  these 
things  have  peeped  out  in  the  course  of  his  denials, 
apologies,  and  arguments,  and  in  my  hand  I  now 
hold  a  written  certificate,  signed  by  two  respectable 
citizens  of  this  county,  provmg  the  truth  of  the 
statements  which  he  has  denied 

The  proofs  already  produced,  clearly  establish  the 
doctine  of  a  Trinity ;  but  these  are  by  no  means  all. 
This  doctrme,  my  hearers,  holds  an  important  rela- 
tion to  all  that  is  solemn  and  all  that  is  valuable  to 
us.  If  God  is  never  worshipped,  but  when  he  is 
worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth — if  he  has  been 
pleased  to  reveal  him  to  us  in  a  Trinity  of  persons, 
and  if  he  has  connected  that  mode  of  existence  with 
all  that  is  precious  and  consolatoiy  in  the  hope  of 
oiu  salvation — who  shall  be  able  to  count  the  conse- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  157 

quence  of  understanding  him  perfectly ! — Who  shall 
sufficiently  fear  the  danger  of  a  mistake  on  a  sub- 
ject of  such  vast  importance ! 

Our  opponents,  who  please  themselves  in  propor- 
tion to  the  profane  levity  with  which  they  can  treat 
the  most  sacred  subjects,  love  to  misrepresent  Trini- 
tarians as  holding  such  doctrines  as  that  God  can  die, 
and  did  die  on  the  Cross ;  and  that,  as  the  Son  is 
co-essential  with  the  Father,  therefore  the  Father 
died.  This  gives  me  an  opportunity  to  make  expla- 
nations, which  may  be  one  good  brought  out  of  the 
evil  of  slanderous  falsehoods.  We  do  not  believe 
that  Jehovah  has  died, nor  can  die,  nor  that  his  death 
could  possibly  do  us  any  good.  We  do  not  believe 
that  either  person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  has  died,  nor 
can  die,  nor  can  benefit  us  by  dying.  Our  opponents 
desii'e  to  confound  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  make 
us  hold  that  the  Father  died,  has  been  already  main- 
tained by  heretics  called  Patripassions  or  Father 
Sufferers.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  divinity  can 
suffer.  We  believe  that  the  humanity  of  Christ 
suffered  more  than  we  can  express  or  conceive.  We 
believe  that  besides  the  sufferings  of  his  bleeding 
body,  he  offered  his  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  that 
in  his  human  soul  and  body  he  bore  the  punishment 
of  our  sins,  if  we  be  among  his  sheep,  for  whom  he 
declares  that  he  died.  We  believe  that  this  humanity 
of  his  was  so  mysteriously,  amazingly  and  con- 
descendingly taken  into  union  with  the  second  per- 
son of  the  Trinity — ^not  the  first  nor  the  third — that 
the  suff'erings  and  death  of  this  humanity  were  as 
efficacious  to  an  atonement  for  our  sins,  as  if  Deity 
14 


158  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

could  have  died  and  had  died  in  our  place,  and  to 
procure  our  pardon.  And  we  believe  that  as  the 
altar  sanctifieth  the  gift,  the  divinity  of  Christ  was 
the  altar  which  sanctified  the  ofFermg  of  his  huma- 
nity, and  made  it  efiicacious  to  the  salvation  of  all 
who  enter  heaven.  As  his  Divmity  was  the  altar, 
and  his  hmnanity  the  offering,  so  we  believe  that  his 
divine  person,  (in  which  divmity  and  humanity  are 
thus  mysteriously  united)  is  the  High-Priest  of  our 
profession,  who  ofiered  the  sacrifice  of  his  humanity 
upon  the  altar  of  his  divinity,  for  he  had  power  to 
lay  down  his  life  and  take  it  up  again.  Thus  we  see 
that  in  real  Trmitarianism,  as  m  real  Protestantism, 
and  real  Christianity,  it  is  a  heresy  to  say  that  God 
can  literally  suifer  and  die.  When  the  Bible  speaks 
of  the  blood  of  God,  it  evidently  has  reference  to 
the  truths  which  we  now  have  been  stating,  in 
which  the  blood  of  Christ's  human  body  was  figura- 
tively called  the  blood  of  God,  because  his  divine 
person  has  a  human  soul  and  body,  mysteriously 
united  with  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead.  This 
is  evidently  the  meaning  also  of  our  sweet  poet, 
when  he  says  that — 

"  God  the  mighty  maker  died, 
For  man  the  creature's  sin !" 

Were  God  such  a  being  as  Mr.  Kinkade's  Christians 
believe,  then  he  could  easily  die.  A  being  possess- 
ed of  body,  parts,  and  passions,  such  as  jNIr.  Kin- 
kade's God,  can  as  easily  die  as  the  old  hunter  who 
set  him  up.  Such  theology,  when  expressed,  may 
well  excite  a  blush  in  my  opponent.     It  may  well 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  159 

be  an  object  of  derision  and  a  cause  of  confusion  to 
men,  and  excite  the  laughter  of  devils ! 

To  show  you  that  my  opponent  is  determined  to 
keep  up  with  Alexander  Campbell  and  the  corps  of 
galloping  bishops,  in  their  career  of  improvement, 
listen  to  his  commentary  on  the  passage  from  Isaiah, 
"Thy  makerl-s]  is  thine  husba}id[s^,  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  is  his  name."  Upon  this  he  declares,  without 
denymg  the  correctness  of  the  criticism,  that  a  hus- 
band requires  a  wife,  and  a  plurality  of  husbands  a 
plm-ality  of  wives.  From  this  you  can  see,  whence 
came  the  improved  Shaker  bible,  teaching  that  there 
are  two  persons  in  the  Godhead,  the  Father  and  the 
Mother/  My  opponent  requires  no  violent  change 
to  be  a  thoroughly  improved  Shaker.  When  God 
says,  "thy  makers  is  thy  husbands,"  Trhiitarians  do 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  contradict  nor  deride.  They  hum- 
bly pray  that  the  Spirit  of  Grace  may  give  them  an 
understanding  of  its  meaning  and  an  experience  of 
its  edifying  sweetness.  They  therefore  believe  that 
God  the  Father  is  the  husband  of  the  Church,  and 
that  God  the  Son  also  is  the  maker  and  the  husband 
of  the  Church.  That  is,  that  Jesus  Christ  takes  the 
church,  which  he  redeemed  with  his  precious  blood, 
into  a  gracious  covenant  union  with  himself,  and 
that  the  cherishing  love  and  care  exercised  by  the 
husband  towards  his  wife,  is  only  a  feeble  figure  of 
the  condescending,  faithful,  gracious  and  glorious 
affection  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  chiuch. 

Alexander  Campbell  got  himself  elected  to  the 
Virginia  Convention,  and  passed  himself  off  as 
Bishop  Oampbell ;  and  was  accordingly  designated 


160  PXUMMER  AND  m'c ALLANS 

by  John  Randolph,  and  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, as  the  Right  Reverend  Gentleman !  I  have 
never  been  ambitious  of  titles,  nor  fond  of  prelatical 
distinctions.  Instead  of  being  pleased  with  the  gal- 
loping bishops  of  antiquity,  or  the  galloping  bishop 
of  the  Virginia  Convention,  or  his  galloping  friends 
here  or  elsewhere,  the  last  synod  in  which  I  sat  can 
testify,  that  when  a  ridiculous  motion  was  made  in 
that  body  to  attach  this  title  to  all  its  members,  I 
was  humbly  instrumental  in  defeating  the  motion. 
Without  such  a  measure,  I  believe  that  men  and 
ministers  are  naturally  disposed  to  gallop  fast  enough 
into  vanity  and  pride,  pomp  and  power.  And  my 
policy  is,  like  that  of  a  righteous  man,  to  spare  the 
poor  horses. 

I  am'  no  more  inclined  to  have  a  female  Deity 
than  I  am  to  have  a  prelate  on  earth,  or  an  old  hun- 
ter in  heaven.  My  opponent's  criticism  on  Isaiah 
liv.  5,  shows  that  he  is  prepared  to  have  a  divine 
wife  and  a  divine  mother,  for  this  divine  corporeal 
father  and  husband  which  his  brother  Kinkade  has 
deified.  I  feel  under  no  obligation  to  reverence  such 
deities,  any  more  than  Elijah  did  to  reverence  Baal 
or  his  priests.  If  this  Baal  of  my  opponent  must 
have  a  wife,  I  would  venture  to  play  the  match- 
maker upon  the  occasion,  and  recommend  to  him  a 
very  suitable  partner,  in  the  apocalyptic  old  lady, 
who  sits  upon  the  seven  hills  !  As  she  is  declared 
to  be  already  a  mother,  being  the  mother  of  harlots 
and  an  innumerable  priesthood  of  blasphemers,  she 
could  at  once  present  the  old  hunter  with  a  large 
family  exactly  according  to  his  taste.     And  to  show 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  OX  THE  TRIXITr.  161 

you  that  I  am  not  doing  him  any  injustice,  I  would 
remind  you  that  his  Christian  mythology  represents 
Christ,  his  secondary  God,  as  the  Son  of  his  old  cor- 
poreal man  in  heaven,  as  Isaac  was  the  son  of  Abra- 
ham. Let  the  Pagan  genealogy  of  gods  beat  this  if 
it  can !  And  let  the  mother  of  harlots  and  abomina- 
tions of  the  earth  show  any  thing  more  abominable ! 

Intelligent  and  consistent  Trmitarians,  speak  figu- 
ratively, when  they  represent  God  as  a  husband, 
and  the  church  as  a  wife  ;  and  when  they  speak  of 
the  Mother  of  the  Son  of  God,  they  allow  jMary  to 
to  be  the  mother  of  his  human  body,  and  not  the 
mother  of  his  divinity.  The  divine  Son  of  God  had 
no  mother,  and  yet  he  is  the  Son  of  God  mysteri- 
ously and  incomprehensibly.  Isaiah  says,  (liii.  S,) 
"Who  shall  declare  his  generation?'^  It  could  not 
be  from  a  mother,  for  it  was  before  mothers  existed. 
Solomon  says,  (Proverbs  viii.  23,  24,)  "  I  was  set  up 
from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the 
earth  was — when  there  were  no  depths  I  was  brought 
forth;"  or,  more  correctly,  "When  there  were  no 
depths  was  my  generation — when  there  were  no 
fountains  abomiding  with  water."  The  eternity  of 
this  generation  is  one  reason,  doubtless,  why  Isaiah 
asked  the  question,  "  Who  shall  declare  his  genera- 
tion ?"  For  what  worm  of  yesterday  can  compre- 
hend the  Triune  Creator,  who  is  from  eternity  to 
eternity  ? 

Ecclesiastes  v.  8, — "  If  thou  seest  the  oppression 

of  the  poor,  and  violent  perverting  of  judgment  and 

justice  in  a  province,  marvel  not  at  the  matter,  for 

he  that  is  higher  than  the  highest  regardeth,  and 

14* 


162  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

these  be  Higher  (Ones)  than  they."  Who  is  the 
highest  here  ?  It  is  Jehovah  the  Supreme  God — in 
Hebrew  phnal,  the  Holy  Ones.  And  here  again  is 
a  plurahty  in  unity — not  three  persons  in  one  person, 
but  three  divine,  intelhgent  agents  in  one  God — only 
one  God. 

Genesis  xx.  1 3. — Abraham  said,  "  And  it  came  to 
pass,  when  God  caused  me  to  wander  from  my 
father's  house,"  &c.  The  Hebrew  here  is  "  The 
Divine  Ones  they  caused  me  to  wander  from  my 
father's  house." 

Malachi  i.  6. — "  If  I  be  a  Master,  where  is  my 
fear,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,"  &c.  The  Hebrew 
word  for  Master,  in  this  passage,  [Adomin,)  is  in 
the  plural — "  If  I  am  Masters,"  &:c.  Here  again  is 
a  plurality  clearly  expressed. 

The  last  passage  is  from  the  close  of  the  old  Testa- 
ment, but  let  it  not  be  understood,  that  the  Trinity 
was  first  revealed  so  late  as  Malachi,  or  Solomon,  or 
Moses,  for  he  is  spoken  of  as  the  author  of  crea- 
tion. (Ecclesiastes  xii.  1.)  The  Hebrew  says, 
"Remember  thy  Creators  in  the  days  of  thy 
youth,"  and  the  Hebrew  of  the  first  verse  in  the 
Bible  says — "  In  the  beginning  the  Divine  Ones 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  Immediately 
after  the  fall,  the  second  of  these  Divine  Ones,  the 
Word  of  God,  there  called  the  Voice  of  the  Lord,  is 
represented  as  walking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of 
the  day,  and  reproving  Adam  for  his  sin.  The  same 
Divine  One  is  directly  afterwards  promised  as  the 
seed  of  the  woman  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  This 
promise  appeared  then  to  be  in  the  Bible  of  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  163 

church,  and  appears  to  have  been  mistaken  by  Eve, 
as  the  promise  of  a  son  was  afterward  mistaken  by 
Abraham.  Abraham  took  Ishmael,  a  type  of  anti- 
christ, for  the  promised  son,  a  type  of  Christ.  So 
Eve  took  her  first  born  Cain,  a  type  of  antichrist, 
for  the  promised  seed,  the  Messiah  himself.  This  is 
manifest  in  the  Hebrew  of  her  own  words :  I  have 
gotten  a  man  child,  not  from  the  Lord,  but  the  Lord 
hunself  Her  words  are — "I  have  gotten  a  man 
child,  the  veiy  Jehovah,''  which  shows  that  in  the 
first  family  of  the  church,  and  of  the  race,  the  pro- 
mised seed  of  the  woman,  the  Saviour  of  sinners, 
was  miderstood  to  be  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  a 
divine  person,  having  two  natures.  Cain  was  a 
murderer,  and  Ishmael  a  robber.  Their  character 
was  mistaken  by  their  respective  parents ;  but  the 
true  son  of  the  promise — the  Messiah,  was  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other,  and  he  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God. 


164  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

MR.  PLUMMER. 
Mr,  Chairman, 

The  written  certificate  introduced  by  the  gentle- 
man, he  says,  is  backed  by  two  witnesses.  Two 
highly  respectable  gentlemen,  on  the  other  hand, 
who  were7;re5e;i/ on  the  occasion  referred  to,  have 
assured  me  to-day  that  my  language  has  been  entire- 
ly misrepresented.  And  I  will  take  this  opportunity 
to  remark,  that  I  shall  take  no  notice,  during  this  dis- 
cussion, of  any  notes  of  a  similar  character. 

The  passage  from  John  v.  7,  has  offered  an  ex- 
cuse for  the  gentleman  to  go  to  the  Hebrew.  As  to 
his  "plurality  of  Creators  and  husbands,"  will  he 
enlighten  us  by  saying,  why  he  differs  from  the 
Jews  m  the  rendering  of  this  passage  ?  The  gentle- 
man says  that  if  Jehovah  has  revealed  himself  in 
the  character  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  we 
are  bound  to  believe  it.  So  say  we,  if  he  has.  But 
this  is  begging  the  question.  It  remains  for  the  gen- 
tleman to  prove  that  he  has  so  revealed  himself.  I 
would  remind  the  gentleman  of  one  remarkable  fact. 
Our  creed  declares  that  God  is  one — that  Jesus  Christ 
is  distmct  from  God,  the  Mediator  between  God  and 
men — that  "  there  is  one  God,  and  one  INIediator  be- 
tween God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  Paul 
says,  "  We  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of 
his  Son.''^  And  again,  "  God  hath  reconciled  us  to 
himself  by  Jesus  Clirist,  and  hath  given  us  the  min- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  165 

istry  of  reconciliation."  Thus  God  was  in  Christ, 
reconciUng  the  world  unto  himself. — "Now  then  we 
are  ambassadors  for  Christ,  as  though  God  did  be- 
seech you  by  us ;  we  pray  you^  in  Christ's  stead,  he  ye 
reconciled  to  God.  And  again,  "  That  he  might  re- 
concile both  unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross.'^ 

What  one  Mediator  is  this  between  God  and  men^, 
if  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  God  ? 

We  pass,  with  these  remarks.  \^Tienever  the 
gentleman  proves  that  God  has  revealed  himself  in  a 
Trinity  of  persons,  we  shall  bow  with  submission. 
We  are  not  for  any  alteration  in  our  Confession  of 
Faith.  If  not  sufficient,  let  us  wait  until  Jehovah 
shall  give  us  another. 

John  V.  7,  is  no  proof  that  Christ  is  the  eternal, 
self-existent  God.  The  passage  was  written  by  the 
apostle  to  prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Soji  of 
God — not  the  God  of  whom  he  is  the  Son.  2  John 
7,  says: — "For  many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the 
world,  who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh :  this  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist. ^^ 
And  again,  in  the  ninth  verse,  "Whosoever  trans- 
gresseth,  and  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
hath  not  God:  he  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of 
Christ,  hath  both  the  Father  and  the  SonJ"  What 
does  this  mean — ''Hath  both  the  Father  and  the 
Son?^^  If  it  means  both  God  the  Father  and 
God  the  Son,  one  being — why  did  not  John  so  tell 
us  ?  I  might  ask  such  questions  till  the  sun  goes 
down. 

"When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of  Cesarea 
Philippi,  he  asked  his  disciples,  saying,  Whom  do 


166  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

men  say  that  I,  the  Son  of  man,  am  ?  And  they  said, 
Some  say  that  thou  art  John  the  Baptist ;  some, 
EUas ;  and  others,  Jeremias,  or  one  of  the  prophets. 
He  said  imto  them.  But  whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ? 
And  Simon  Peter  answered  and  said,  Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  hving  God.  And  Jesus  an- 
swered and  said  unto  him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar-jonah ;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  And 
I  say  also  unto  thee,  That  thou  art  Peter ;  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.^' 

Christians  of  Delaware  county  ! — Upon  this  rock 
have  I  built  my  faith  ! — Not  upon  Peter,  but  this 
Revelation  of  the  Father — ^^  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Sonoi  the  living  God!'^ 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Paul.  "  Grace  be  unto  you, 
and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  Not  the  divine  humanity,  but  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Why  say,  "and  from  our 
Lord  Jesus  Chiist,"  if  he  be  God  the  Father  ?  Is 
there  not  an  evident  distinction  intended  here,  be- 
tween God  the  Father  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Jolm  does  not  tell  us  that  they  are  one  God — ^but 
one  in  their  testimony  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  be  converted  and 
believe  in  one  God,  and  confess  that  Jesus  is  his 
Son.  I  hope  not  only  that  the  young,  but  that  per- 
sons with  gray  hairs,  will  not  be  too  proud  to  ac- 
knowledge that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  unto  salvation. 

But,  hear  the  apostle — "  Grace  be  unto  you,  and 
peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  our  Lord  Jesus 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  O^  THE  TRINITY.  167 

Christ.''  Did  we  ever  tead  of  grace  from  the  Tri- 
nity? It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Christ  "should 
all  fulness  of  grace  dwell."  There  are  numerous 
other  passages  in  which  this  salutation  is  similarly- 
expressed  ;  and  which  clearly  proves  Christ  to  be  a 
bemg  distinct  from  the  Father.  Why  did  the  apos- 
tles make  use  of  this  form  of  expression,  if  they 
were  Trinitarians  ?  But  the  gentleman  don't  answer 
these  questions.  He  gets  over  them  with — "  0  this 
is  blasphemy !" 

Will  the  gentleman  answer  this  plain  question : — 
Why  has  he  not,  in  one  single  instance,  been  able  to 
put  his  finger  on  a  text  which  proves  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  ?  With  him  all  has  been  inference.  He 
appears  to  be  hard  pushed  indeed  ! 

If  we  say  that  Jesus  is  God,  do  we  not  contradict 
the  remarkable  facts,  that  Jesus  was  tempted — that 
he  hungered — that  he  wept — that  he  slept — that  he 
sorrowed — ^that  he  was  weary — and  that  he  finally 
suffered  and  died  on  the  cross  ?  God  cannot  sufl'er 
pain — but  Jesus  suffered  the  painful  death  of  the 
cross.  God  cannot  sorrow,  but  Jesus  was  despised 
and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows  and  ac- 
quainted with  grief.  God  cannot  sit  at  his  own 
right  hand,  but  Jesus  is  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of 
the  Majesty  on  high.  Does  not  this  mideniably 
prove  that  he  is  dependent  on  God  for  all  things, 
and  not  the  independent,  self-existent  Jehovah  ?  If 
we  deny  this,  do  we  not  rank  among  those  charac- 
ters who  deny  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ? 

"Jesus  healed  an  impotent  man  on  the  Sabbath 


168  PLUMMER  AND  M^CALLA's 

day.  This  so  enraged  the  Jews,  that  they  sought  to 
take  away  his  hfe.  He  defended  his  benevolent 
deed  with  this  observation.  « My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  work.'  They  immediately  accused 
him  of  making  himself  equal  with  God!  He 
quicldy  denied  the  truth  of  their  accusation,  with 
his  strongest  affirmation.  « Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself .^  A  more 
explicit,  direct,  positive  denial,  he  could  not  have 
given.  For  if  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself 
he  surely  cannot  be  equal  with  God,  who  can  of 
himself  do  all  things.  In  substance,  therefore,  Jesus 
declared  that  he  had  not  made  himself  equal  with 
God;  because  he  could  do  nothing  without  his 
assistance." 

The  gentleman  cannot  squeeze  in  here  that  it  was 
Christ's  humanity,  for  the  Son  himself  declares  that 
he  has  not  made  himself  equal  with  God.  If  he 
says  that  Jesus  is  equal  with  God,  does  he  not  con- 
tradict the  declarations  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets  ? 
By  the  word  God,  when  applied  to  the  Supreme 
Being,  we  understand  one  self-existent,  uncreated, 
underived,  eternal,  all-perfect,  all-pervading  Spirit. 
If  then,  you  say  Jesus  is  equal  to  God,  you  make 
him  a  second  self-existent,  uncreated,  underived, 
eternal,  all-perfect,  all-pervading  Spirit — a  second 
Deity.  And  yet  God  declares,  "  /  am  God  and 
there  is  none  else."  To  say  this  Infinite  Being  is 
equal  with  himself,  is  perfect  nonsense — it  is  per- 
version and  contradiction.  If  Jesus  is  equal  with 
God,  he  must  be  ivith  him  filling  immensity ;  but 
God  declares,  "There  is  no  God  tvith  me."     If  we 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  169 

place  confidence  in  the  words  of  the  Ahiiighty,  we 
cannot  beheve  there  is  any  infinite  being  equal  to 
the  one  true  God,  or  ivith  the  one  true  God,  or  like 
the  one  true  God. 

When  Jesus  was  baptised,  and  the  mfinite  God 
declared,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased,  hear  ye  him ;"  did  he  not  mean  that 
Christ  is  a  distinct  being  from  God — truly  the  Son 
of  God  ?  Jesus  has  not  once  hinted  that  he  is  equal 
to  the  Eternal  Jehovah.  Does  not  all  this  go  to 
prove  that  he  is  not  God — that  he  is  not  equal  with 
the  Father  ?  If  he  does  not  possess  all  these  attri- 
butes, as  he  explicitly  declares  he  did  not,  he  cannot 
be  equal  with  the  eternal  God.  Besides  these,  other 
passages  might  be  produced.  Speaking  of  himself, 
he  says — "  I  am  the  Son  of  God."  If  he  is  the  Son 
he  must  depend  on  the  Father  for  his  existence. 
For  "the  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  texts.  To  put  the 
matter  at  rest,  the  Son  himself  declares,  "  JMy  Fa- 
ther is  greater  than  I,"  and  this  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood. This  is  the  language  of  Christ,  and  he  that 
contradicts  Christ  and  his  apostles,  is  "a  deceiver 
and  an  antichristP"^ 


*  The  gentleman  first  named  John  v.  7,  and  of  its  being  of 
doubtful  authority.  Yet,  he  pretends  to  excuse  himself  for 
cominff  prepared  for  bush  fighting  behind  his  professedly  learn- 
ed criticisms  of  the  Hebrew,  because  we  gave  the  criticisms  of 
the  learned  Trinitarians  on  John  v,  7. 

For  the  Hebrew  plural  terminations  see  Note  page  285. 
15 


170  PLT7MMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


MR.  M^CALLA. 

I  wondered  what  it  was  that  made  my  opponent's 
tongue  run  so  ghb.  When  I  heard  him  say,  "  if  he 
be  equal  with  the  Father,  he  must  be  a  second 
Deity,"  I  thought  it  was  not  in  the  Bible,  and,  look- 
ing up,  found  that  he  was  again  reading  from  that 
filthy  little  pamphlet.  The  Bible  was  held  up  by 
him  yesterday,  and  pronounced  to  be  his  creed, 
every  word  of  which  he  believed,  and  yet  he  now 
contradicts  Christ  himself,  "  who  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God.'' 

My  opponent  declares  that  I  am  not  satisfied  with 
one  Bible ;  but  the  truth  is,  it  is  he  who  is  not  satis- 
fied with  one  Bible.  He  must  first  have  Kneeland's 
Bible,  until  he  turned  out  rogue  and  Atheist — then 
Kinkade's — ^now  a  sixpenny  pamphlet — then  Camp- 
bell's Bible — and  next,  I  suppose,  he  will  go  over, 
with  Campbell's  right-hand  man,  Sidney  Rigdon,  to 
the  Mormon  Bible,  or  with  his  brother  Stone's 
friends,  to  the  Shaker  Bible  ! 

Dr.  Channing  was  unwilling  to  write  a  creed  to- 
day lest  by  endless  and  rapid  improvements  he  should 
have  to  write  another  to-morrow.  My  opponent 
and  his  tribe,  labour  under  the  same  difficulties  in 
the  business  of  Bible-making.  He  has  given  us  a 
string  of  Unitarians,  which,  like  those  mentioned  by 
Mr.  Kinkade,  have  many  shades  of  improvement. 
They  must  make  their  Bible  to  suit  their  religion. 
While  they  are  Trinitarians  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  171 

Scriptures  will  do,  and  our  translation,  with  even 
John's  epistle,  will  answer ;  but  his  Christian  breth- 
ren, in  my  native  state,  get  clear  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  along  with  it  the  true  Scriptures;  and 
after  playing  upon  Unitarian  ground  av/hile,  they  had 
to  turn  Shakers,  and  get  a  Shaker  Bible,  which  had 
the  doctrine  that  there  were  two  persons  in  the  God- 
head, the  Father  and  the  Mother.  Barton  W.  Stone 
has  not  yet  gone  so  far,  nor  has  his  brother  Alexan- 
der Campbell  yet  taken  that  leap  ;  but  his  right-hand 
man,  Sidney  Rigdon,  has  found,  that  Alexander 
Campbell's  new  Bible  is  not  new  enough  for  him 
— so  he  has  improved,  by  going  over  to  the  Mor- 
monites,  and  adoptmg  their  Bible,  which  is  even  an 
improvement  upon  the  Shakers.  Their  improve- 
ments in  the  way  of  Bible-making,  however,  are 
very  much  like  the  improvements  which  their  books 
and  Mr.  Kneeland's  have  made  of  my  speeches  on 
the  rostrum,  which  they  have  professed  to  give  with 
exemplary  fidelity,  while  they  are  mere  caricatures, 
not  containmg  one  sentence  of  mine. 

We  are  told  by  my  opponent,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  was  established  by  the  Council  of  Nice. 
Yes,  just  as  our  rights  were  established  by  the  Re- 
volution. From  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  true  reli- 
gion had  declined  in  some  places.  Arianism  began 
to  prevail,  and  it  was  time  to  give  it  a  check.  The 
Council  of  Nice  was  convoked  to  rebuke  this  heresy, 
and  Arius  was  summoned  before  them.  His  doc- 
trines and  writings  were  condemned, — the  faith  of 
the  gospel  was  declared,  and  is  now  preserved  in  the 
"Nicene  Creed."     By  this  creed  we  are  taught  that 


172  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

the  true  God  is  a  Trinity  in  Unity — Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost — tliree  persons  in  one  Divine  essence — 
in  whose  name  we  are  baptised,  and  whom  we  are 
bound  to  beheve  and  worship.  This  is  the  plain 
doctrine  which  was  taught  by  the  Apostles  of  old, 
and  yet  my  opponent  would  have  you  believe  that 
it  originated  in  the  Council  of  Nice.  It  is  the  doc- 
trme  of  the  holy,  blessed,  and  glorious  Trinity,  dic- 
tated by  the  Spirit  of  the  Most  High, — not  by  the 
devil,  nor  by  my  opponent  and  his  gang  of  galloping 
bishops ! 

2  Samuel  vii.  23. — "  And  what  nation  in  the  earth 
is  lilie  thy  people,  even  like  Israel,  whom  God  (He- 
brew, the  Divine  Ones)  went  to  redeem  for  a  people 
to  hi?nse(f.'^  Here  is  another  passage,  which  keeps 
the  Spirit  of  God  in  view.  The  Divine  Ones  (plural) 
went  to  redeem  them  to  himself  (singular.)  The 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  have  the  agency,  and 
yet  they  are  but  one  God,  the  Saviour  of  sinners. 

Proverbs  xxx.  3. — "  I  neither  learned  wisdom,  nor 
have  the  knowledge  of  the  Holi/  Ones.^^ 

Hosea  xi.  12. — "  Ephraim  compasseth  me  about 
with  lies,  and  the  house  of  Israel  with  deceit :  but 
Judah  yet  ruleth  with  God  (Hebrew,  the  Divine 
Ones,)  and  is  faithful  with  the  Saints." 

Joshua  xxiv.  19.  ' "  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord,  for 
he  is  a  holy  God" — (Hebrew,  "  he  is  a  God,  who 
are  Holy  Ones.") 

Genesis  xxxv.  7. — Jacob  "  built  there  an  altar,  and 
called  the  place  El-beth-el  (God,  the  house  of  God) 
because  there  God  (the  Divine  Ones)  were  revealed 
unto  him." — Here  we  have  Jacob's  vision  of  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITr.  173 

ladder,  connecting  heaven  and  earth,  a  figure  of  that 
Saviour  who  united  both  natures  in  one  person,  in 
such  a  way  that  on  him  the  angels  of  God  and  the 
Spirits  of  the  redeemed  might  ascend  and  descend 
and  hold  fraternal  intercourse.  This  is  the  fulfilment 
of  that  Psalm  which  says,  "  JNIercy  and  truth  are  met 
together ;  righteousness  and  peace  have  kissed  each 
other :  Truth  shall  spring  out  of  the  earth,  and 
righteousness  shall  look  down  from  heaven."  Jesus 
Christ,  who  is  the  truth  and  the  Lord  our  righteous- 
ness, has  true  human  nature,  which  he  received  from 
the  earth,  though  by  miraculous  conception,  and  has 
true  divinity,  which  looks  down  from  heaven,  and 
is  of  eternal  generation.  As  he  is  the  true  temple 
of  God,  or  house  of  God,  and  God  himself,  he  may 
well  be  t^^ified  by  the  "  El-beth-el — God,  the  house 
of  God;"  and  the  reason  which  is  given  that  the  Di- 
vine Ones  were  there  revealed,  should  satisfy  every 
disciple  of  God  that  there  is  a  phu-ality  of  persons 
in  the  Divme  essence. 

Deuteronomy  iv.  7. — "  For  what  nation  is  there  so 
great,  who  hath  God  (the  Divine  Ones)  so  nigh  unto 
them  as  the  Lord  (the  one  Jehovah)  our  God  {Di- 
vine Ones)  is  in  all  things  that  we  call  upon  him 
for?"  Here  again  is  a  trinity  in  unity  clearly  ex- 
pressed. 

My  object  has  been  to  prove  the  affirmative.  The 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  essence,  and  trinity,  have 
been  palpably  proved,  though  the  question  does  not 
call  for  proof  of  three  persons  in  the  Divine  essence, 
but  of  only  a  plurality. 

From  one  or  two  remarks  in  the  Hebrew  Lexicon, 
15^ 


174  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

my  opponent  tells  you  that  all  Jews  are  against  us 
on  this  subject.  Yet  Roy's  Hebrew  Lexicon  says — 
"  Rabbi  Solomon  ben  Joachi  has  the  following  re- 
markable words  in  his  commentary  on  the  sixth  sec- 
tion of  Leviticus : — '  Come  and  behold  the  wonder- 
ful mystery  in  the  word  Elohim ;  there  are  three 
degrees,  and  each  degree  distinct  and  by  itself,  and 
yet  they  are  all  one,  and  formed  together  in  one,  and 
are  not  divided  nor  separated  from  each  other !' 
Here  is  one  who  acknowledges  the  Trinity,  while 
talking  like  a  child  with  his  book  upside  down. 

Josephus,  though  a  Jew,  appears  to  have  had 
strong  reasons  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  not  a  man 
but  the  God  of  heaven. — If  we  can  find  God  called 
God  in  the  Scriptures,  there  is  some  reason  to  believe 
that  he  is  God.  IVIy  opponent  admits  that  wherever 
God  is  called  God  in  the  Bible,  it  is  some  proof  of 
his  divinity ;  but  when  Christ  is  called  God,  he  tells 
you  that  it  no  more  proves  him  to  be  God  than  it 
jrroves  the  devil  to  he  God! 

It  is  said,  John  v.  22, 23. — "  All  men  should  honor 
the  Son  as  they  honor  the  Father ;"  and  again,  He- 
brews i.  8,  "  Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne,  O 
God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."  In  the  text  Isist  quoted, 
Jesus  is  called  God  absolutely,  without  any  qualify- 
ing term.  Denyers  of  Christ's  divmity  have  been 
considered  false  teachers  in  all  ages  of  the  Church. 
— "  He  is  antichrist  who  denieth  the  Father  and  the 
Son." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  175 

MR.  PLUMMER. 
Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  Moderators, 

The  gentleman  proves  our  argument  by  saying 
that  those  who  deny  Christ  are  antichrists.  If  we 
say  there  is  no  Christ  but  the  only  true  God,  do  we 
not  deny  him  whom  God  hath  made  to  be  both  Lord 
and  Christ  ? 

But  the  gentleman  has  given  no  proof  that  the  ob- 
ject of  John  was  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity. He  has  said  nothing  of  the  mass  of  testimony 
which  we  have  produced  to  show  that  the  oneness 
of  which  John  speaks  is  a  unity  of  testimony  not  of 
numbers.  But  I  will  not  multiply  words.  If  the 
oneness  means  one  being,  and  that  one  is  Christ  him- 
self, where  are  the  three  witnesses?  In  all  the  gentle- 
man says  in  relation  to  one  God,  we  go  with  him ; 
but  when  he  says  Holy  Trinity,  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  It  is  not  in  our  creed — the  Bible — 
though  it  is  in  his  Confession  of  Faith. 

But  how  is  the  term  God,  in  its  highest  sense,  to 
be  given  to  Christ.  Christ  himself  says,  "  My  God ! 
My  God!— My  Father!  My  Father!"  Hence  the 
term  must  be  given  to  Christ  in  a  secondary  sense. 
For  such  views,  our  opponent  would  have  you  think 
we  are  a  devil.  Of  Christ  it  was  said,  "  He  hath  a 
devil,  why  hear  ye  him  ?  If  we  let  him  alone  he  will 
take  away  our  kingdom.  The  world  is  gone  after 
him.''     "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his 


176  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  beheveth  m  him 
should  not  perish  but  have  everlasting  life."  "For 
God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be 
saved."  Then  God  saves  through  Jesus  Christ,  God 
has  exalted  him  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  God 
appointed  Moses,  Joshua  and  others,  as  Saviours  to 
Israel.  These  were  types  of  Jesus  whom,  in  the 
fullness  of  time,  according  to  promise,  God  raised  up 
to  be  a  Saviour.  Hence  the  apostle  saith,  "We  have 
seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be 
the  Saviour  of  the  world."  God,  therefore,  was  the 
only  Saviour  at  last.  But  we  will  not  multiply  ar- 
guments. 

We  will  now  make  a  few  general  remarks  on  the 
equality  of  the  Father  and  Son.  Paul  says  of 
Christ,  Being  in  the  form  of  God,  he  thought  it 
not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  but  humbled  him- 
self and  became  obedient  unto  death,  wherefore  God 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which 
is  above  every  name,  that  every  tongue  should  con- 
fess that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father.  (Phil.  ii.  5 — 11.)  "Let  this  mind  be  in  you, 
which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus :  who  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God ;  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in 
the  likeness  of  men :  and,  being  found  in  fashion  as 
a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient 
unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross.  Wherefore 
God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
name   which   is   above   every  name ;    that  at  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  177 

name  of  Jesus  every  kiiee  should  bow,  of  things  in 
heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  thmgs  under  the 
earth.  And  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 

It  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  equality  is  not 
what  the  gentleman  would  have  you  believe.  They 
are  not  "co-equal,  co-essential,  and  co-eternal;"  but 
the  equality  means,  so  far  as  God  has  given  him 
equality  as  a  Son.  To  say  that  he  whom  God 
raised  from  the  dead,  and  exalted  above  every  name, 
is  co-equal  with  him  who  thus  exalted  him,  would 
be  absiud ;  for  it  would  be  impossible  for  one  co- 
equal person  to  exalt  another  co-equal  person  ! 

The  gentleman's  creed,  he  says,  has  not  been 
altered.  T  referred  to  the  Methodist  creed,  as  it  was 
twenty-nine  years  ago.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  it 
could  be  altered  once  in  four  years.  Their  creed 
also  tells  you  that  "  the  Scriptures  are  the  only  suffi- 
cient rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  what  is  not  read 
therein  and  cannot  be  proved  thereby  is  not  to  be 
received  as  an  article  of  faith."  But  by  and  by 
they  give  you  a  creed,  binding  on  your  consciences, 
as  large  as  the  new  Testament.  But  creeds  are  going 
out  of  fashion.  If  God  has  not  given  us  in  the  Bible 
sufficient,  let  us  wait  until  he  gives  us  more.  Creeds 
have  given  you  this  discussion — they  are  at  war 
with  the  Bible  and  have  always  been  a  curse  and 
vexation  to  the  Church.  They  are  starting-posts  for 
sects,  and  rallying  points  for  parties.  The  "  ins  and 
the  outs"  raised  the  strife — a  calm  discussion  at 
Nice  ensued — a  creed  was  adopted — but  the  result 
will  be,  that  as  the  rod  of  Aaron  ate  up  the  rod  of 


178  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

the  Egyptians,  so  will  the  Bible  finally  eat  up  all 
creeds. 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  declares  that 
« the  Son  of  God,  the  second  person  in  the  Trinity, 
being  very  and  eternal  God,  of  one  substance  and 
equal  with  the  Father,  did,  when  the  fuhiess  of  time 
was  come,  take  upon  him  man's  nature,  and  all  the 
essential  properties  and  common  infirmities  thereof, 
yet  without  sin :  being  conceived  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of 
her  substance.  So  that  two  whole,  perfect  and  dis- 
tinct natures,  the  Godhead  and  manhood,  were  in- 
separably joined  together  in  one  person,  without 
conversion,  composition,  or  confusion.  Which  per- 
son is  very  God  and  very  man,  yet  one  Christ,  the 
only  Mediator  between  God  and  man.'' 

What  does  all  this  mean  ?  Adding  man  to  God, 
in  one  person,  never  to  be  divided ;  yet  that  he  died 
on  the  cross — and  did  not  die  !  nor  yet  one  half,  for 
the  whole  is  but  one  Christ !  If  one  God,  the  God- 
head, were  inseparably  united  with  manhood,  where- 
by they  became  one  person,  very  God  and  very  man, 
yet  one  Christ,  then  if  his  Christ  died  his  God  was 
crucified.  But  if  his  God  was  not  crucified,  then 
he  has  no  Christ  that  died.  Let  the  gentleman  get 
out  of  it  if  he  can.  This  article  of  his  creed  is  a 
tissue  of  absolute  falsehoods  and  contradictions.  It 
might  as  well  say  that  the  Great  Jehovah  can  die, 
as  that  a  man  can  die  who  is  inseparably  united  with 
the  divine  nature  in  one  person.  If  one  co-equal 
God  could  die,  could  not  another  ? 

We  read  of  Jesus,  that  he  "  was  born,  in  Bethle- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  179 

hem  of  Judea,"  (Matt.  ii.  1, — see,  also,  Luke  ii.  1 — 
11.)  We  believe  the  Scriptural  account  of  his  birth. 
Not  that  "God  was  ever  born/' 

That  "  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom,  and  stature,  and 
in  favor  with  God  and  man."  (Luke  ii.  52.)  Not 
that  "God  increased  in  wisdom,  nor  stature,  nor  in  fa- 
vor with  himself  and  his  creatures." 

That  "  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about  thirty 
years  of  age,"  (Luke  iii.  23,)  at  the  period  of  his 
baptism.  Not  that  God  ever  began  to  be  about 
thirty  years  of  age. 

That  "'  Jesus,  also,  being  baptised  and  praying,  the 
heaven  was  opened,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  descended 
in  a  bodily  shape,  like  a  dove,  upon  him."  (Luke  iii. 
21,  22.)  Not  that  Gob  was  everbaptised,  nor  prayed ; 
northat  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him. 

That  "  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  with  power."  (Acts  x.  38.)  Not 
that  Jesus  so  anointed  himself. 

That  "  The  Father  sent  the  Son,  to  be  the  Sa- 
viour of  the  world."    Not  that  "  God  sent  himself." 

We  read,  (words  of  Christ,)  "Now  is  my  soul 
troubled,^^  (John  xii.  27.)  We  do  not  read,  that  the 
soul  of  God  is  nor  can  be  troubled. 

We  read,  in  the  prophetic  vision  of  Isaiah, — "He 
is  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows, 
and  acquainted  with  grief."  (Isa.  liii.  3.)  We  be- 
lieve this  prediction  was  accomplished  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  We  do  not  read,  "He  was  a  God  of 
sorrows." 

We  read,  (words  of  Christ,)  "  The  Father  which 
dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works."  (John  xiv. 


180 

10.)  We  believe  he  gave  a  true  account  of  the  Di- 
vine operation  by  him.  We  do  not  read,  that  he 
wrought  of,  and  from  himself,  alone. 

It  is  said  of  Jesus,  on  a  certain  occasion, — "  He 
was  ASLEEP.'^  (Matt.  viii.  24.  See,  also,  Mark  iv. 
38.  Luke  viii.  23.)  Not  that  God,  the  Guardian  of 
Israel,  either  slumbereth  or  sleepeth. 

We  read  of  Jesus,  that  he  "  kneeled  down  and 
prayed."  (Luke  xxii.  41.)  We  believe  he  had  need 
of  prayer  ;  that  he  sought  protection,  strength,  con- 
solation, and  favor  of  God,  because  he  wanted  it, 
and  was  conscious  that  of  his  "  own  self,"  he  could 
"do  nothing."  (John  v.  30.)  We  do  not  read,  that 
God  kneeled  down,  and  prayed. 

That,  "  Being  in  an  agony,  Christ  prayed  more 
earnestly ;  and  his  sweat  was,  as  it  were,  great  drops 
of  blood  fallmg  down  to  the  ground."  (Luke  xxii. 
44.) — We  believe  he  sincerely  felt  the  disgrace  and 
wretchedness  of  his  condition,  when  he  was  about  to 
be  "  reckoned  among  the  transgressors."  (Luke  xxii. 
37 ;)  and  when  he  who  "  knew  no  sm,"  was  to  be 
«  made  sin,  for  us."  (2  Cor.  v.  2 1 .)  That  his  «5ow/" 
was  "  exceedingly  sorrowful,  even  unto  death," 
(Matt.  xxvi.  38 ;)  and  that  his  bloody  sweat,  and 
agony  of  prayer  were  sincere  expressions  of  the  bit- 
ter "  travail  of  his  soul,"  (Isa.  liii.  11.)  That  he  then 
prayed  for  what  he  earnestly  desired,  if  it  might  be 
granted.  He  submitted  to  the  hour  of  wretchedness, 
only  because  Infinite  Wisdom  had  ordained  that 
"  thus  it  must  be."  (Matt.  xxvi.  54.)  We  do  not 
read  that  this  was  one  part  of  Christ  praying  to  an- 
other part  of  Christ.     We  do  not  believe  it.     We  do 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  181 

not  read,  that  this  was  God,  soUloqiiizing  with  him- 
self, and  calling  it  prayer.  We  do  not  believe  it. 
We  do  not  read  that  his  agony  was  only  apparent ; 
that,  while  the  outward  appearance,  in  the  flesh  of 
Jesus,  was  that  of  excessive  anguish,  the  soul  within 
was  untroubled,  and  unsuffering.  We  believe  the 
agony  was  real ;  and  so  intense,  that  he  was  almost 
ready  to  say,  "Father,  save  me  from  this  hour." 
(John  xii.  27.)  Blessed  be  his  name,  that  he  did  not 
say  it ;  and  that  he  concluded  his  prayer  with  the 
words,  "  For  this  cause  came  I  to  this  hour  ;  Father, 
glorify  thy  name."  We  do  not  read,  that  Christ  said 
these  outward  words  of  prayer,  and  exhibited  these 
outward  appearances  of  distress  and  ultimate  surren- 
der to  the  Divine  will,  in  order  to  make  a  show,  for 
our  example.  His  prayer  is  an  example ;  and  happy 
they  who  follow  it.  But,  what  is  true  prayer  ?  The 
sincere  expression  of  sincere  thought  and  feeling. 
Words  alone,  or  even  associated  with  a  kneehng  pos- 
tiue,  with  the  "  face  to  the  earth,"  or  with  a  bloody 
sweat,  are  not  prayer.  Prayer  must  exist  and  breathe 
in  the  deep  sincerity  of  the  soul;  or  it  exists  and 
breathes  not  at  all.  Tell  me,  then,  that  the  Son  of 
man  uttered  these  outward  words  of  prayer,  and 
exhibited  these  distressful  appearances ;  and,  yet,  that 
he,  at  the  same  time,  was  God,  mitrou bled,  unsuffer- 
ing, and  undesiring ;  and  you,  instantly,  destroy  the 
sincerity  of  the  Saviour's  heart.  You  leave  me  a 
mere  "/orm  of  godliness,"  without  "the  power 
thereof;"  an  outward  shadow,  without  a  spiritual 
substance.  You  take  away  my  true  Lord,  and  leave 
nothing  but  manhood.  We  must  believe  that  he 
16 


182  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

was  sincerely  conscious  of  anguish,  that  "  he  was 
troubled  in  spirit,''^  (John  xiii.  21,)  and  that  he  ex- 
pressed his  thoughts  and  feelings  to  God,  in  the  com- 
plete sincerity  of  spirit  and  truth.  We  cannot, 
therefore,  believe  him  to  have  been  the  very  and 
eternal  God. 

On  the  same  occasion,  "  There  appeared  an  angel 
unto  him  from  heaven,  strengthening  him."  We  do 
not  read,  that  angels  from  heaven  strengthen  God. 

Again,  that  Jesus  "prayed;"  that  he  was  often 
"praying." — We  believe,  that  he  needed  and  wanted 
what  he  prayed  for ;  that  his  prayer  was  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  his  dependence  on  God  for  that  which 
he  asked ;  and  that  it  was  a  true  request,  that  God 
would  grant  it  if  consistent  with  wisdom.  And,  if 
any  one  could  ever  sincerely  aver,  that  he  went  to 
God  for  protection,  or  looked  to  him  for  refuge, 
Jesus,  above  all  others,  could  do  this.  We  do  not 
read,  that  these  prayers  were  soliloquies  of  God 
with  himself;  nor,  that  Clirist  was  asking,  of  God, 
what  he,  himself,  had  all-sufficient  power  to  take  or 
bestow ;  nor,  that  it  was  one  nature  of  Christ,  com- 
muning with  another  nature  of  Christ. — It  was 
HIMSELF  that  prayed ;  and,  the  self  comprehends 
the  whole  conscious  being.  Make  it  otherwise,  and 
you  make  a  hypocrite  of  him  in  whose  mouth  no 
guile  was  ever  found. 

Again,  "  Jesus  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  and  gave 
up  the  ghost."  (Mark  xv.  37.)  We  do  not  read, 
"  God  gave  up  the  Ghost." 

It  is  said  in  sundry  places,  "  Christ  died."  Not 
that  "God  died." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  183 

"This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up."  (Acts  ii.  32.) 
Not  that  Jesus  raised  himself  up,  by  his  own  inde- 
pendent power. 

"  Now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead.^'  (1  Cor.  xv. 
20.)     Not  that  "God  is  risen  from  the  dead." 

"  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye,  (the 
Jews)  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ."  (Acts 
ii.  36.)  Not  that  Jesus  made  himself  either  Lord  or 
Christ. 

"  It  is  Christ  which  was  ordained  of  God,  to  be  the 
Judge  of  quick  and  dead."  (Acts  x.  42.)  Not  that 
he  so  ordained  himself. 

It  is  said,  "  Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of 
God."  (Coloss.  iii.  1.)  Not  that  "God  sitteth  on  the 
right  hand  of  God." 

We  read  concerning  Christ,  that  he  is  entered 
"  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence 
of  God  for  us."  (Heb.  ix.  24.)  Not  that  God  ap- 
pears in  the  presence  of  God  for  us. 

We  read,  "He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church ; 
who  is  the  beginning,  the  first -horn  from  the  dead?^ 
(Coloss.  i.  18.) — Not  that  God  is  the  first-born  from 
the  dead. 

And  that  "through  him  [Christ]  we  both  have 
access,  by  one  spirit,  unto  the  Father."  (Ephes. 
ii.  18.) — W"e  do  not  read,  that  he  by  whom  we  have 
access  unto  God,  is  God  and  man  in  one  person 
united. 

Christ  says,  "  Ye  beheve  in  God,  believe  also  in 
me."  (John  xiv.  1.)  We  desire  to  obey  this  pre- 
cept. Not  that  "  ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in 
me,  for  I  likewise  am  God." 


184  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

The  Son  said,  "  Go  to  my  brethren,  and  say  unto 
them,  I  ascend  to  my  Father,  and  your  Father,  and 
to  MY  God,  and  your  God.^'  (John  xx.  17.) — Now 
we  beUeve,  that  the  God  and  Father  of  Christ,  is, 
also,  our  Father  and  God.  Not  that  "  I  ascend  unto 
MYSELF."  We  must  beheve,  he  was  sincere  in  his 
words ;  and  that  he  had  a  Father  and  God,  to  whom 
he  did  ascend. — Amen. 

(Closed  by  prayer.) 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  185 

Friday  morning,  Jan.  21. 
MR.  M'CALLA. 

It  was  my  intention  yesterday  afternoon  to  give  a 
scriptural  account  of  the  Eternal  Sonship,  and  of 
antichrist,  but  my  hour  had  expired  before  I  had  en- 
tered upon  the  subject  of  antichrist. 

"  Who  is  a  liar  but  he  that  denieth  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  ?  He  is  antichrist  that  denieth  the  Father 
and  the  Son."  This  condemns  as  anti-christian,  those 
who  inculcate  a  religion  that  is  opposed  to  Chris- 
tianity, or  which  is  a  counterfeit  Christianity.  And 
among  these  counterfeits  and  opposers,  which  John 
had  chiefly  in  view,  both  in  his  gospel  and  his  gene- 
ral epistle,  we  find  those  who,  while  pretending  to 
be  Christians,  denied  the  divinity  of  Chi'ist. — There- 
fore, his  gospel  begins  with  a  decided  assertion  of 
his  divinity,  and  the  above  passage  of  the  epistle 
declares,  that  he  who  denies  the  Son  as  thus  held 
forth,  denies  the  Father  also,  by  which  I  understand 
that  a  denial  of  a  divine  Father,  a  divine  Son,  and  a 
divine  Spirit,  three  equal  persons  in  one  divine  es- 
sence, is  an  opposer  of  Christ,  and  if  he  profess 
Christianity  it  is  a  counterfeit  Christianity. 

"  Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not 
the  Father ;  but  he  that  acknowledgeth  the  Son  hath 
the  Father  also."  Observe  here,  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  say  in  so  many  words  that  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  not  God,  to  be  antichrist.  He  denies  the 
16* 


186  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

true  God  who  denies  what  is  said  of  God  and  of  his 
Son. 

My  opponent  denies  the  equality  of  the  Son,  and 
yet  admits  that  Christ  has  some  power,  conferred 
upon  him  by  the  Father.  Servants  do  not  think  it 
robbery  to  be  servants.  The  Jews  did  not  think  it 
robbery  for  Christ  to  make  himself  inferior  to  God ; 
but  they  thought  it  robbery  for  him  to  claim  an 
equality.  They  would  not  have  stoned  Jesus  for 
saying  that  he  was  inferior  to  his  Father.  The  Jews 
always  admitted  that  a  son  had  a  right  to  talk  of  his 
inferiority  to  his  father.  But  inspiration  has  de- 
clared that  Christ  himself  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God.  The  Jews  knew  that  he  claimed 
to  be  the  second  person  in  the  adorable  Trmity — the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God — the  supreme  Son  of  God 
— the  equal  with  God. 

"But  Jesus  answered  them,  My  Father  worketh 
hitherto,  and  I  work.  Therefore  the  Jews  sought 
the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  bro- 
ken the  sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  was  his 
Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God.  Then 
answered  Jesus,  and  said  unto  them.  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  imto  you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself, 
but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do :  for  what  things 
soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise. 
For  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth  him  all 
things  that  himself  doeth :  and  he  will  show  him 
greater  works  than  these,  that  ye  may  marvel.  For 
as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth 
them;  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will. 
For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man  ;  but  hath  committed 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  187 

all  judgment  unto  the  Son;  that  all  men  should 
honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He 
that  honoreth  not  the  Son,  honoreth  not  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  him.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
He  that  heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  on  him  that 
sent  me,  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into 
condemnation;  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life. 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  hour  is  coming, 
and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of 
the  Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  For 
as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given 
to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself;  And  hath  given 
him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  because  he 
is  the  Son  of  man.  Marvel  not  at  this  :  for  the  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth ;  they  that 
have  done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ;  and 
they  that  have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of 
damnation.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing :  as 
I  hear,  I  judge  ;  and  my  judgment  is  just :  because 
I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me.  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself, 
my  witness  is  not  true.  There  is  another  that  bear- 
eth  witness  of  me ;  and  I  know  that  the  witness 
which  he  witnesseth  of  me  is  true.'^  (John  v.  17 — 32.) 
In  this  passage  we  have  it  testified,  by  divme  in- 
spiration, that  Christ  claimed  God  for  his  Father,  in 
a  sense  which  no  other  can  claim  him  for  a  Father. 
The  Jews  so  understood  him,  and  so  Jesus  explains  it. 
He  teaches  that  the  Son  does  the  same  works,  and 
possesses  the  same  knowledge  with  the  Father — that 
in  common  with  the  Father,  he  raises  the  dead  and 


188  PLrMMER  AND  m'cALLa's 

sits  in  judgment  upon  them.  And  this  he  declares, 
in  order  that  equal  honor  may  be  given  to  both. 

When  he  says  that  he  can  do  nothing  of  himself, 
and  bears  witness  of  huuself,  we  understand  it  as 
equivalent  to  a  declaration  that  his  Father  is  supe- 
rior to  himself — that  is,  to  his  humanity.  But  so  is 
his  divine  Sonship  superior  to  his  humanity,  and  this 
Sonship  was  never  declared  to  be  inferior  to  his  Fa- 
ther. But  as  the  Jews  understood  him,  so  the  Bible 
always  teaches,  that  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  the  Father. 

"Who  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  or  de- 
scended? Who  hath  gathered  the  wind  in  his 
fists  ?  Who  hath  bound  the  waters  in  a  gamient  ? 
Who  hath  established  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  ? 
What  is  his  name,  and  what  is  his  Son^s  name,  if 
thou  canst  tell?"  (Prov.  xxx.  4.)  These  are  ques- 
tions which  the  Scriptures  can  answer.  His  name 
is  Jehovah  the  Father,  and  his  Son's  name  is  Jeho- 
vah the  Son ;  and  thus  the  name  of  the  one  is  said 
to  be  in  the  other,  because  they  are  alike  divine. 
As  we  have  it  in  Exodus,  (xxiii.  20,)  "Behold  I 
send  an  angel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way, 
and  to  bring  thee  into  the  place  which  I  have  pre- 
pared ;  beware  of  him,  and  obey  his  voice ;  provoke 
him  not  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions  : 
ybr  mi/  nayne  is  in  him.^^  Here  he  says,  my  name 
is  in  him,  or  as  an  eminent  Hebrew  lexicographer 
says:  ^^  my  nature  is  in  him.^^  This  community 
of  name  may  also  be  found  in  Isaiah  ix.  6,  where 
he  says — "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son 
is  given — and   the  government  shall   be  upon  his 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  189 

shoulder — and  he  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Coun- 
sellor, the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the 
Prince  of  Peace.''  Here  the  name  of  "Mighty- 
God,"  which  belongs  to  the  first  person,  is  given  to 
the  second  also  ;  and  the  name  of  "  Everlasting  Fa- 
ther," which  belongs  to  the  first  person,  is  given  to 
the  second  also,  not  as  the  Patripassions  would  ex- 
plam  it,  but  because  in  the  Scriptures  each  person 
of  the  adorable  Trinity  is  represented  as  the  Father 
of  the  Church. 

The  knowledge  of  His  name,  and  of  his  Son's 
name,  Moses  was  anxious  to  obtain,  when  he  had  a 
sight  of  Him,  and  a  conversation  with  Him  in  the 
burning  bush,  in  the  land  of  Midian.  And  as  my 
opponent  has  made  frequent  and  mournful  com- 
plaints of  my  quoting  isolated  texts,  we  will  here 
quote  more  largely,  a  portion  of  Scripture,  in  which 
Mr.  Kinkade  admits  that  the  glorious  one  who 
dwelt  in  the  bush  was  Jesus  Christ. 

"  And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him 
in  a  flame  of  fire,  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush :  and 
he  looked,  and,  behold,  the  bush  burned  with  fire, 
and  the  bush  was  not  consumed.  And  Moses  said, 
I  will  now  turn  aside,  and  see  this  great  sight,  why 
the  bush  is  not  burnt.  And  when  the  Lord  saw 
that  he  turned  aside  to  see,  God  called  unto  him  out 
of  the  midst  of  the  bush,  and  said,  Moses,  Moses. 
And  he  said.  Here  am  I.  And  he  said,  Draw  not 
nigh  hither ;  put  off"  thy  shoes  from  off"  thy  feet,  for 
the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground. 
Moreover  he  said,  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father,  the 
God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 


1^0  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Jacob.  And  Moses  hid  his  face  ;  for  he  was  afraid 
to  look  upon  God.  And  the  Lord  said,  I  have 
surely  seen  the  affliction  of  my  people  which  are  in 
Egypt,  and  have  heard  their  cry  by  reason  of  their 
task-masters ;  for  I  know  their  sorrows ;  and  I  am 
come  down  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  hand  of 
the  Egyptians,  and  to  bring  them  up  out  of  that 
land  unto  a  good  land  and  a  large,  mito  a  land  flow- 
ing with  milk  and  honey ;  unto  the  place  of  the 
Canaanites,  and  the  Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  and 
the  Perizzites,  and  the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites. 
Now  therefore,  behold,  the  cry  of  the  childi'en  of 
Israel  is  come  unto  me :  and  I  have  also  seen  the 
oppression  wherewith  the  Egyptians  oppress  them. 
Come  now,  therefore,  and  I  will  send  thee  unto 
Pharaoh,  that  thou  mayest  bring  forth  my  people, 
the  children  of  Israel,  out  of  Egypt.  And  Moses 
said  unto  God,  Who  am  I,  that  I  should  go  unto 
Pharoah,  and  that  I  should  bring  forth  the  children 
of  Israel  out  of  Egypt  ?  And  he  said.  Certainly  I 
will  be  with  thee :  and  this  shall  be  a  token  unto 
thee,  that  I  have  sent  thee  ;  When  thou  has  brought 
forth  the  people  out  of  Egypt,  ye  shall  serve  God 
upon  this  mountain.  And  Moses  said  unto  God, 
Behold,  when  I  come  unto  the  childi'en  of  Israel, 
and  shall  say  unto  them.  The  God  of  your  fathers 
hath  sent  me  unto  you;  and  they  shall  say  to  me, 
\Miat  is  his  name  ?  what  shall  I  say  unto  them  ? 
And  God  said  mito  Moses,  I  AM  THAT  I  AM ; 
and  he  said.  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children 
of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you.  And  God 
said,  moreover,  unto  Moses,  Thus  shalt  thou  say 
unto  the  children  of  Israel,  The  Lord  God  of  your 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  191 

fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob  hath  sent  me  unto  you :  this  is  my 
name  for  ever,  and  this  is  my  memorial  unto  all 
generations.  Go,  and  gather  the  elders  of  Israel  to- 
gether, and  say  unto  them,  The  Lord  God  of  your 
fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob, 
appeared  unto  me,  saying,  I  have  surely  visited  you, 
and  seen  that  which  is  done  to  you  in  Egypt :  And 
I  have  said,  I  will  bring  you  up  out  of  the  affliction 
of  Egypt  unto  the  land  of  the  Canaanites,  and  the 
Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  and  the  Perizzites,  and 
the  Hivites,  and  the  Jebusites,  unto  a  land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey.  And  they  shall  hearken  to 
thy  voice  :  and  thou  shalt  come,  thou  and  the  elders 
of  Israel,  unto  the  king  of  Egypt ;  and  ye  shall  say 
unto  him.  The  Lord  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met 
with  us :  and  now  let  us  go,  Ave  beseech  thee,  three 
days'  journey  into  the  wilderness,  that  we  may 
sacrifice  to  the  Lord  our  God.''     (Ex.  iii.  2 — 18.) 

Here,  in  the  fifth  verse,  the  glorious  personage 
requires  Moses  to  give  him  the  worship  never  given 
to  a  mere  creature.  In  the  sixth  verse,  he  assumes 
the  title  of  God,  even  the  true  and  eternal  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob.  In  the  whole  passage, 
he  claims  the  honor  due  to  the  God  of  Creation, 
Providence  and  Redemption, — speaks  of  himself  as 
the  head  of  the  church,  the  vindicator  of  their  wrongs, 
and  the  author  of  their  blessings — and  assumes  the 
title  "I  am  that  I  am.."  If  the  true  and  Eternal 
God  be  any  where  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  it  is  in 
this  passage — it  is  where  he  made  himself  known  to 
Moses  in  the  bush.  Yet  Mr.  Kinkade  confesses  that 
this  God  was  Christ — wherefore  he  must  be  the  tme 


192  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

and  Eternal  God,  and  he  that  denies  it  under  a 
Christian  name,  denies  the  Father,  is  au  enemy  to 
God,  and  a  comiterfeit  Christian. 

"  His  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
the  Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father,  the  Prince 
of  Peace."  "  My  nature  is  in  him'^^ — the  nature 
of  the  Most  High  God  and  not  of  an  imaginary 
being.  It  was  He  who  was  m  the  Councils  of 
Eternity — not  my  opponent !  What  are  we,  in  com- 
parison, but  worms  of  the  dust?  But  when  we  pre- 
sume to  find  fault  with  this  Mighty  God,  we  are  no 
longer  worms,  but  devils  ! 

The  terms  "Supreme,"  "Highest,"  or  "Most 
High"  God,  are  found  in  as  great  purity  in  the  ori- 
gmal,  when  applied  to  the  Son  as  to  the  Father. 
Christ  also  receives  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  other 
names  and  titles  given  to  the  Supreme  and  Eternal 
God — such  as  the  incommunicable  name  Jehovah, 
the  Angel  Jehovah,  Jehovah  of  Hosts ;  the  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last,  the  Beginning 
and  the  Ending,  the  Almighty,  the  Only  Divine  Po- 
tentate, the  King  of  Kings  and  Lord  of  Lords,  Son 
of  God,  God,  Lord  and  God,  the  Great  God,  the 
Mighty  God,  the  True  and  Eternal  God,  the  Only 
Wise  God.  The  omnipresence,  omnipotence,  omni- 
science, eternity,  and  immutability  of  the  Father,  are 
all  in  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  the  Son.  The  works 
also  that  belong  to  the  Father  belong  to  the  Son  : 
many  passages  throughout  all  Scripture,  show  that 
Jesus  is  the  author  of  Creation,  Providence  and  Re- 
demption. The  Son  and  the  Spirit  both  receive  Di- 
vme  honors  and  worship ;  and  we  are  required  to 
honor  and  worship  the  second  and  third  persons  in 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  193 

the  adorable  Trinity  as  we  honor  and  worship  the 
Father.  My  opponent  and  his  Christians  profess  to 
worship  Christ,  but  give  him  no  higher  dignity  than 
to  say  that  he  is  the  ''first  heing  that  God  created^ 
These  Christians  have  the  same  excuses  for  their 
worship  of  an  annointed  creature,  that  the  Papists 
have  for  their  idolatry.  But  the  truth  is,  that  the 
idolatry  of  the  Papists  is  in  some  thmgs  far  less  gross 
than  that  of  the  "  Christians."  Even  the  supreme 
object  of  Christian  worship  is  incomparably  inferior 
to  some  of  the  Popish  saints  and  angels,  for  they  are 
spiritual  beings ;  whereas  the  Christian  Jupiter  is  a 
material  being,  having  body,  parts  and  passions,  and 
in  the  shape  of  a  man.  Moreover,  some  of  the 
Popish  gods  have  a  real,  though  subordinate  exist- 
ence ;  whereas  the  "  Christian"  Jove  has  no  exist- 
ence, except  in  the  fleeting  fancy  of  a  few  feeble  and 
fickle  fanatics. 

Mr.  Kinkade  says,  page  151,  that  the  titles  Lord 
and  Michael,  are  only  different  titles  and  names 
given  to  the  same  person,  that  is,  to  Christ.  "  Mi- 
chael" is  one  of  oiu:  proofs — literally,  "who  is  like 
God,  or  as  God,  or  equal  to  God."  But  this  Michael, 
as  revealed  to  us  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  called 
God  his  Father  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  himself 
equal  with  God,  and  his  Spirit  declares  that  he  did 
not  think  it  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  and  that 
men  should  honor  him  as  they  honor  the  Father. 

Beware  how  you  let  the  blasphemies  of  his  ene- 
mies soil  your  souls :  how  you  bow  down  to  their 
false  Gods — the  idolatrous  fancies  and  fabrications  of 
old  hunters  and  devils. 

17 


194  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


MR.  PLUMMER. 

PRAYER. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen, 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  approach  these  solemn  and 
deeply  mterestmg  topics.  Inquiries  after  divine 
truth  should  always  be  made  with  calmness  and 
sincerity,  as  in  the  presence  of  God. 

There  are  two  or  three  things  in  the  gentleman's 
last  speech  which  require  notice.  Isaiah  ix.  6,  "For 
unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given." 
Who  gave  him?  "And  his  name  shall  be  called 
Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  Ever- 
lasting Father,  the  Prince  of  Peace/'  Who  was  to 
caU  him  so ?  "And  the  government  shall  be  upon  his 
shoulder."  Who  should  give  it  to  him  ?  Why  did 
not  the  gentleman  read  the  whole  of  the  text  ?  We 
might  follow  him  for  a  month,  if  he  is  to  give  us 
only  detached  portions  of  Scripture,  which,  taken  in 
connection  with  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  show  a 
meaning  entirely  different  from  that  which  he  attach- 
es to  them.  The  whole  passage  reads — "  Of  the  in- 
crease of  his  government  and  peace  there  shall  be 
no  end ;  upon  the  throne  of  David  and  upon  his 
kingdom,  to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judg- 
ment and  with  justice  from  henceforth  even  for  ever: 
The  zeal  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts  ivill perform  this .'" 

What !  the  God  of  Israel  to  be  set  on  the  throne 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  195 

of  David  to  order  and  establish  it  ?  But  the  gentle- 
man will  tell  you  that  it  is  blasphemy  to  ask  such 
questions ;  and  this  is  all  the  reply  which  he  makes 
to  these  important  inquiries  ! 

We  are  inclined  to  think  that  he  knew,  if  he  read 
the  whole  passage,  that  it  would  expose  the  absur- 
dity of  his  reasoning. 

I  told  you  what  followed  in  that  notable  passage 
from  Isaiah  would  explain  its  true  meaning.  He 
who  gave  the  Son  and  called  him  the  "  Everlasting 
Father"  is  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  Father  has  exalted  him  to  his  own 
right  hand,  next  in  authority  to  himself  and  "  given 
him  a  name  above  every  name."  When  we  say  he 
is  "co-equal  with  the  Father,"  we  say  the  Father  is 
not  greater  than  the  Son,  and  make  Jesus  a  liar. 
Did  ever  the  Son  say,  I  am  the  Father  Almighty  ? 

One  passage  the  gentleman  will  not  attempt  to 
root  out.  In  praying  to  his  Father  the  Son  said, 
"This  is  life  eternal  that  they  might  know  thee,  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast 
sent." 

One  more  passage — "Holy  Father,  thy  will  and 
not  mine  be  done."  Was  it  humanity  or  the  eternal 
God  that  here  prayed  ?  Did  the  Father  ever  pray 
to  himself?  Jesus  said,  "All  power  is  given  unto 
me  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  go  ye  therefore  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptising  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  Son  is  here  referred  to  as  next  in  authority  to 
the  Father. 

We  now  pass  to  the  Holy  Spirit.     Our  Trinitarian 


196  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

brother  seems  to  have  forgotten  that  there  is  any- 
Holy  Spirit  at  all — we  have  not  had  one  word  from 
him  on  that  subject.     We  might  say,  as  they  did  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  "  We  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  if  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost."     Where  is  the 
Holy  Ghost  called  a  person  or  bemg  distinct  from 
God  ?    Give  us  passages  that  read  plain — we  have 
given  you  scores,  expressive  of  our  sentiments,  with- 
out   changing    the    phraseology  of  Scripture.     If 
we  believe  not  the  record  God  has  given,  Jolin  says 
we  make  God  a  liar  ! — The  term  "  person"  is  never 
applied  to  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  whole  book,  though 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  frequently  personified  as  the  Com- 
forter.    Read  Paul's  personification  of  sin,  death 
and  charity,   (Rom.  v.  14,  17.     1  Cor.  xv.  26,  55. 
Ch.  xiii.)  and  Solomon  on  Wisdom,  (Prov.  viii.)     It 
is  scores  of  tmies  spoken  of  as  "the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,"   "thy   Spirit,"   "the   Spirit   of   God,"   and 
"his  Spirit."     "Know  ye  not,"  says  Paul,  (1  Cor. 
vi.  19,)  "that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost?"     That  by  the  Holi/  Ghost  is  here  meant 
God  himself,  appears  from  two  or  three  parallel 
passages,  (1  Cor.  iii.  16.)     "Know  ye  not  that  ye 
are  the  temple  of  God?''     (2  Cor.  vi.   16.)     "Ye 
are  the  temple  of  the  livmg  God,  as  God  hath  said, 
I  will  dwell  in  them,  and  walk  in  them."  -  Similar 
examples  of  the  use  of  the  spirit  of  God  for  the 
power  of  God,  might  be  multiplied.    One  more  only 
shall  be  mentioned.     (2  Cor.  iii.  3.)     "  Ye  are  the 
epistle  of  Christ,  ministered  by  us,  written  not  with 
ink,  but  with  the  spirit  of  the  living  God ;  not  in 
tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshy  tables  of  the  heart." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  197 

The  allusion  in  this  text  is  to  the  two  tables  re- 
ceived by  Moses  on  jNIount  Sinai,  on  which  were 
written  the  ten  commandments.  Now  turning  to 
the  account  of  this  transaction  in  Exodus  and  Deu- 
teronomy, (Ex.  xxxi.  18.  Deut.  ix.  10,)  we  find 
them  there  declared  to  be  written  with  the  finger 
of  God.  The  apostle  therefore  probably  meant  the 
same  thing,  when  he  said,  written  by  the  Spi?^it  of 
God.  Each  was  intended  to  express  an  effect  pro- 
duced supernaturally,  by  the  power  of  God  himself." 
Suppose  the  Spirit  was  spoken  of  scores  of  times  in 
the  Scriptures  as  a  person  or  being  distinct  from 
God,  and  never  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  what  would 
you  think  if  we  should  assert — that  it  was  the  Spirit 
of  a  person,  and  not  a  person  distinct  from  God? 
We  repeat,  the  Spirit  is  not  called  a  person  distinct 
from  God  in  all  the  Scriptures.  It  is  called  the  power, 
breath,  arm,  hand,  and  finger  of  God,  but  can  it 
be  supposed  that  the  power,  breath,  arm,  hand  and 
finger  of  God  refer  to  a  being  or  person  distinct  from 
God  himself?  The  apostles  "  went  forth  preaching 
the  word  with  power  or  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  God 
working  with  them  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own 
good  pleasure."  Jesus  says  in  one  place,  "  I  cast  out 
devils  by  the  finger  of  God ;" — in  another,  '^  I  cast 
out  devils  by  the  power  of  God;"  and  in  another, 
"  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God."  Now  do 
not  all  these  expressions  show  that  he  meant  a  di- 
vine influence  from  God,  and  not  another  being  ? 

The  gentleman  has  quoted  Rev.  i.  8.     "I  am  Al- 
pha and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending,  saith 
the  Lord,  which  is  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to 
17* 


198  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

come,  the  Almighty.^^  The  term  Ahnighty  is  never 
appUed  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
connection  in  this  chapter  will  show  that  it  does  not 
here  refer  to  him.  In  the  first  verse,  you  have  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ  which  God  gave  mito 
him ;  in  the  second  verse,  the  word  of  God  and  the 
testimony  of  Jesus  Christ:  and  m  the  fourth  and 
fifth  verses,  you  have  the  salutation,  "  Grace  be  unto 
you  and  peace  from  him  which  is,  and  which  was, 
and  which  is  to  come,  and  from  Jesus  Christ  who  is 
the  faithful  witness,  and  the  first  begotten  of  the 
dead."  Here  you  first  have  Christ  and  God,  second 
God  and  Jesus  Christ,  and  third,  "  From  him  which 
is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,"  and  "  Je- 
sus Christ  the  first  begotten  of  the  dead."  Now 
does  not  the  "  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is 
to  come,  the  Almighty,"  in  the  eighth  verse,  mean 
the  same  being  that  is  called  "  the  which  is,  and  which 
was,  and  which  is  to  come,"  m  the  fourth  verse  ?  or 
does  it  mean  him  that  is  here  spoken  of  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  Almighty  ?  Read  the  whole  con- 
nection and  if  you  do  not  come  to  the  former  con- 
clusion, you  must  believe  that  the  Mmighty  was 
the  "  first  begotten  from  the  dead." 

The  gentleman  has  given  a  string  of  titles,  as 
applicable  to  Christ.  The  faithful  witness  himself 
hath  said,  that  he  received  his  life  and  power  from 
the  Father;  and  all  the  names  and  titles  that  are 
applied  to  him  in  the  Scriptures,  are  said  to  be 
given  to  him  by  the  Father,  There  are  many  ex- 
pressions in  Scripture  applied  to  the  Father,  which 
are  never  applied  to  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     It  is 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  199 

said  that  "the  head  of  Christ  is  God" — that  God  is 
"the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'' — 
"the  invisible  God" — "the  King  eternal,  immortal 
and  invisible" — "the  only  wise  God" — "whose 
name  alone  is  Jehovah,  the  Most  High  over  all  the 
earth."  Unto  Mary  it  was  said,  "  The  power  of 
the  Highest  shall  come  upon  thee,  therefore  that 
holy  thmg  which  shall  be  bom  of  thee  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God" — but  will  it  be  said  that  God 
Almighty  was  Mary's  child  ?  Elizabeth  saluted 
Mary  as  the  Mother  of  my  Lord.  Does  this  mean 
Jehovah?  Sarah  Called  Abraham  "My  Lord!" 
but  did  she  mean  Jehovah?  Again  David  says, 
"  The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord !"  but  does  that 
mean  two  Jehovahs  ? 

The  gentleman  speaks  of  two  natures.  His  Con- 
fession of  Faith  tells  us  in  regard  to  those  two  na- 
tures, that  they  were  inseparably  joined  together  in 
one  person — very  God  and  very  man,  yet  one 
Christ.  This  we  do  not  believe ;  because  our 
Christ  is  the  "  Mediator  between  God  and  men  !" 

The  gentleman  says  I  have  endeavored  to  get  into 
the  Councils  of  the  Most  High.  The  remark  is  un- 
fortunate for  him.  It  is  his  creed  that  professes  to 
have  got  behind  the  curtain,  and  revealed  the  secret 
will  of  the  Almighty.  We  tell  you,  we  are  bound 
by  this  word — the  word  of  God — and  this  only,  as 
the  revelation  of  God's  will. 

The  gentleman  has  also  called  me  infernal.  But 
calling  me  so  don't  make  me  so.  If  he  should  de- 
clare that  Plummer  is  drunk,  it  would  not  make  him 
stagger. 


SOO  PLUMMER  AND  M'CALLA's 

The  gentleman  has  gone  mto  Hebrew  to  prove  a 
plurality  of  persons  in  the  Divine  Essence,  and 
would  have  us  believe,  that  if  rightly  understood, 
they  prove  the  doctrine  for  which  he  is  contending. 
He  has  again  galloped  over  the  Alleghanies,  and  as 
he  seems  to  have  feared  that  the  Campbells  were 
coming — the  Campbells  would  be  upon  him — let 
him  now  clear  himself  of  the  Campbells.  As  he  has 
made  a  great  display  of  his  knowledge  of  the  origi- 
nal Scriptures,  I  will  read  a  passage  from  one  of  the 
speeches  of  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Mr. 
M'Calla  on  "  Christian  Baptism.'' 

"Mr.  M'Calla,  (he  says,)  conscious  of  his  own  in- 
competency to  make  a  single  criticism,  or  to  defend 
one  of  his  own,  shrewdly  considered  if  he  could 
work  upon  my  modesty,  so  as  to  make  me  ashamed 
to  even  mention  a  Greek  word,  he  would  then 
escape  exposure,  for  I  am  told  he  has  affected  to  be 
a  very  profound  linguist  even  in  this  very  place; 
and  on  a  certain  occasion  defamed  the  illiterate 
Baptists.  But  the  fact  is  this,  Mr.  M.  is  unac- 
quainted v/ith  Greek,  and  I  now  say  he  cannot,  in 
my  opinion,  read  one  chapter  in  the  Septuagint,  if 
his  life  depended  on  it.  Here  it  lies  before  me,  and 
he  can  easily  have  an  opportunity  of  convincing 
both  you  and  me  that  I  am  mistaken.  Until  this  is 
done,  or  until  he  makes  and  defends  one  criticism 
of  his  own,  we  shall  retain  this  opinion  which,  in- 
deed, I  am  convinced  is  well-founded.  It  matters 
not,  however,  seeing  he  details  the  criticisms  of 
others  who,  he  says,  are  the  best  critics  in  the 
world,  and  a  refutation  of  their  criticisms  is  more 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  OX  THE  TRIMTY.  201 

important  than  a  refutation  of  his.  This  I  should 
have  passed  over  without  notice,  had  not  his  re- 
peated exclamations  rendered  it  necessary.'^ 

The  gentleman  also  seems  to  have  an  inveterate 
antipathy  to  the  "  Christians''  over  the  Alleghanies. 
Why  is  this  ?  I  would  ask  him  if  he  did  not  once 
have  a  discussion  with  a  "  Christian"  preacher  which 
resulted  in  his  defeat  ?  Was  he  not  subsequently 
prosecuted  for  calumniatmg  that  preacher,  and  does 
he  not  now  stand  recorded  as  a  convicted  libeller  ? 

In  reference  to  the  gentleman's  allusion  to  weavers 
and  shoemakers,  I  would  ask  him,  are  not  some  of 
the  brightest  stars  in  the  constellations  of  our  na- 
tional horizon  mechanics  ?  The  great  Jehovah  him- 
self is  the  greatest  mechanic  of  all.  The  gentleman 
says  his  words  were  never  intended  to  convey  an 
expression  of  contempt  for  mechanics.  But  does 
that  wipe  off  his  unhandsome  statements  and  in- 
sinuations ? 

God  alone  must  judge  who  is  right.  I  ask  pro- 
fessors and  all  others  to  examine  for  themselves  and 
embrace  the  tRith.  If  we  cannot  all  see  alike,  let 
us  love  and  pray  one  for  another,  with  Christian  for- 
bearance. If  we  are  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  the 
truth,  what  have  we  that  we  have  not  received? 
Professions  and  creeds  are  nothing.  God  will  reward 
us  all  according  to  our  deeds.  We  would  indulge 
no  malice.  If  we  have  not  the  truth  to  sustain  us, 
we  wish  to  be  convinced.  Give  us  light.  Give  us 
the  law  and  the  testimony — "  if  they  speak  not  (says 
the  prophet)  according  to  this  word,  it  is  because 
there  is  no  light  in  them !" 


202  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 


MR.  M'CALLA. 

If  there  had  been  less  of  that  about  mechanics,  I 
should  not  again  have  referred  to  the  subject.  My 
remark  about  weavers  and  shoemakers  was  doubt- 
less miderstood  by  this  audience  as  it  was  intended, 
to  be  ironical.  I  have  never  in  my  life  spoken  con- 
temptuously of  mechanics.  I  once  had  a  beloved  elder 
who  was  a  shoemaker,  and  I  was  the  means  of  put- 
ting him  mto  the  eldership.  I  have  a  workshop  at 
home  of  my  own,  and  this  box  which  I  hold  in  my 
hand  was  made  by  myself.  I  would  rather  have  the 
acquaintance  of  many  an  honest,  conscientious  me- 
chanic, than  of  Queen  Victoria  herself  When  I 
was  a  little  boy  in  Kentucky,  I  was  much  among  the 
slaves,  and  was  taught  to  mend  harness,  and  to  make 
myself  useful  in  a  variety  of  ways.  I  was  a  sort  of 
quack  in  mechanics,  as  my  opponent  is  in  medicine. 
And  yet  I  am  accused  by  him  of  speaking  contemp- 
tuously of  working  men.  Nothing  was  farther  from 
my  mind,  and  he  knows  it  just  as  well  as  he  knows 
that  he  is  alive ! 

And  now  as  to  this  libel  suit  in  Kentucky.  In  my 
discussion  with  Mr.  Lane  at  Milford,  a  Mr.  Goff  was 
one  of  the  Unitarian  Moderators.  This  Mr.  Goff 
published  what  he  professed  to  call  a  faithful  report 
of  the  discussion,  being  a  dirty  little  pamphlet  of  some 
seventy-five  pages,  as  meager  as  Pharaoh's  seven 
years  of  famine.  The  thirty-eight  speeches  really 
spoken,  occupied  nineteen  hours  in  the  delivery ;  but 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  203 

to  read  Mr.  QofPs  faithful  report  of  facts  and  argu- 
ments, at  a  speaking  speed,  would  require  but  one 
hour  and  a  half  at  the  outside.  I  think  that  Mr. 
Goff  has  been  here  during  this  discussion,  and  if  so, 
I  should  like  to  get  a  sight  of  him.  Well,  this  same 
story  about  the  libel,  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Lane 
into  the  discussion  at  Milford.  I  gave  the  true  ver- 
sion then,  and  I  will  endeavor  to  repeat  the  circum- 
stances now.  Mr.  Goff  was  very  careful  that  the 
story  should  not  appear  in  his  faithful  report. 

In  the  Western  States  we  often  worship  God  as 
our  Fathers  did,  in  the  open  air.  At  the  place 
where  this  libel  suit  origmated,  the  "  Christians''  had 
a  stone  chm-ch,  but  the  Presbyterians  were  destitute, 
and  conducted  their  religious  services  under  a  tempo- 
rary shed  constructed  of  rough  boards.  The  "  Chris- 
tians^^ tore  down  this  shed ;  for  which  they  were 
prosecuted  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  a  verdict  of 
twenty-four  dollars  recovered.  One  of  the  "  Chris- 
tian" preachers  was  remarkably  officious  in  this  con- 
troversy, and  told  some  most  outrageous  falsehoods. 
In  a  pamphlet  subsequently  published  by  me,  I  stated 
that  he  was  a  liar.  For  this  he  brought  a  suit 
against  me,  to  recover  the  price  of  his  character. 
On  the  trial  I  proved  all  that  I  had  stated,  and, 
though  you  know  it  is  a  principle  of  law  that  ^'  the 
greater  the  truth  the  greater  the  libel,"  the  jury  were 
unable  to  agree,  and  were  discharged.  He  then 
tried  it  again  on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  and  after 
much  difficulty  and  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the 
jurors,  they  at  length  agreed  to  render  a  verdict  in  his 
favor.     And  what  do  you  think  that  verdict  was  ? 


204 

For  the  old  boards,  you  will  recollect,  the  Presbyte- 
rians recovered  twenty-four  dollars.  "  Well,"  you 
will  ask,  "was  it  one  thousand  dollars?"  No. 
"  Five-hundred  dollars  ?"  No.  "  One  hundred  ?" 
No!  " Fifty  dollars ?"  No!  "Well,  the  price  of 
the  old  boards  ?"  No — not  even  that !  But  I  will 
tell  you  what  it  was — it  was  oiie  cent !  That  was 
the  price  at  which  a  jury,  composed  principally  of 
his  friends,  estimated  the  character  of  a  "  Christian" 
minister,  who  had  been  proved  guilty  of  lying. 
There  were  no  half  cents  then,  or  the  verdict  might 
have  been  still  less.  But  even  at  this  estimate,  the 
old  boards  would  have  paid  for  the  characters  of 
tioenty-four  hundred  such  "  Christian"  ministers  as 
this  brother  of  Mr.  Plummer. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  doubted  my  knowledge  of 
Greek,  and  required  me  to  give  specimens  before  the 
audience,  by  occupying  my  time  and  making  myself 
appear  contemptible  and  ridiculous.  And  because  I 
would  not  consent  to  be  led  into  a  foolish  trap,  he 
insisted  upon  my  ignorance  of  the  original  Scrip- 
tures. My  laiowledge  of  the  languages  was  not  the 
subject  of  discussion.  I  never  boasted  there,  nor 
have  I  boasted  here,  of  my  learning.  I  have  been 
as  far  north  as  Quebec,  as  far  south  as  Texas,  but 
have  never  felt  disposed  to  play  the  pedant.  Nor 
was  I  desirous  to  render  myself  ridiculous,  by  pub- 
licly reading  a  chapter  of  Greek  for  the  gratification 
of  "  Bishop"  Campbell.  In  my  younger  days  I  had 
a  beloved  uncle  who  was  very  fond  of  making  sport 
among  his  friends.  He  once  told  me  that  a  German 
acquaintance  had  one  day  asked  him  if  he  had  a 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  205 

knowledge  of  the  German  Bible,  at  the  same  time 
turning  to  the  third  chapter  of  John,  and  asking  him 
to  read  the  chapter.  My  uncle  knew  it  by  memory, 
and  appeared  to  translate  it  very  fluently  into  our 
language,  though  he  knew  not  a  word  of  the  Ger- 
man !  To  test  my  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  my 
uncle,  at  the  time  he  related  this  anecdote,  asked  me 
to  find  the  same  chapter  in  the  Greek  Testament, 
and  give  him  the  English  of  it,  which  I  did  with 
such  fluency  that  he  soon  stopped  me,  saying  he 
thought  I  knew  it  by  memory  too,  and  was  playing 
him  the  same  trick  that  he  had  played  the  German. 
Yet  if  I  were  the  most  perfect  scholar  on  earth,  that 
would  not  prove  my  position,  nor  would  my  igno- 
rance refute  it.  Nor  would  either  learning  or  igno- 
rance excuse  a  man  for  the  abominable  folly  of  leav- 
ing the  subject  of  discussion  to  read  the  dead  lan- 
guages for  the  amusement  of  the  audience. 

My  opponent  is  not  satisfied  with  my  knowledge 
of  the  original  Scriptures,  and  has  endeavored  to  ex- 
plain them  himself.  He  has  intimated  that  Abraham 
is  called  Jehovah  in  the  Hebrew.  He  first  said  Lord, 
but  in  explaining  said  Jehovah.  His  ignorance  of 
the  language  may  make  him  appear  more  excusable 
for  this  gross  and  dreadful  misstatement.  Abraham 
is  never  called  Jehovah.  God  expressly  declares, 
that  this  is  a  name  which  he  will  not  give  to  another, 
although  it  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ  and  to  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  because,  although  they  are  diflerent,  they  are 
not  another  but  the  same  divine  being.  The  title 
applied  to  Abraham,  is  not  the  incommunicable  name 
Jehovah,  but  it  is  Adoni,  a  name  which  is  given  to 
IS 


206 

the  Holy  Trinity  and  to  creatures  also.  In  the  be- 
ginning of  the  110th  Psalm,  Jehovah  said  to  Adoni, 
"  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand  until  I  make  thy  enemies 
thy  footstool.'^  This  word  occurs  often  in  the  prophe- 
ciesof  Ezekieljinour  translation  of  which  the  title  Lord 
God  occurs  with  unparalleled  frequency.  I  believe 
that  the  original  of  every  such  case  is  Adoni  Jehovah. 

Campbell  of  Aberdeen  has  given  this  translation : 
"  Hear,  0  Israel,  Jehovah  is  one  God — Jehovah  is 
one."  Here  Jehovah  is  in  the  singular,  for  the  Di- 
vine essence  is  one,  and  it  is  connected  with  another 
name  in  the  plural,  which  makes  it  read  substan- 
tially, Jehovah  is  our  Divine  Ones,  for  there  is  a  plu- 
rality of  persons,  yet  Jehovah  is  one,  for  there  is  but 
one  God. 

In  Hosea  xii.  5,  it  is  said,  "  Jehovah  is  my  memo- 
rial.'* Exodus  iii.  15,  "This  [Jehovah]  is  my  name 
for  ever,  and  my  memorial  unto  all  generations." 
Psalm  Ixxxiii.  IS,  "  Thou  whose  name  alone  is  Je- 
hovah art  the  Most  High  over  all  the  earth."  Isaiah 
xlii.  8,  "  I  am  Jehovah,  that  is  my  name,  and  my 
glory  will  I  not  give  to  another,  neither  my  praise  to 
graven  images."  Zechariah  xiv.  9,  "And  Jehovah 
shall  be  King  over  all  the  earth :  in  that  day  shall 
there  be  one  Jehovah,  and  his  name  one."  These 
are  passages  to  show  that  this  great  and  glorious 
name  is  given  to  none  but  one  Supreme  and  Eternal 
God.  Yet  it  is  in  numerous  Scriptures  given  to  three 
persons,  sometimes  miitedly  and  sometimes  distinctly. 

In  Zechariah  iii.  1—4,  it  is  said,  "And  he  showed 
me  Joshua,  the  High  Priest,  standing  before  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah,]  and  Satan  standing  at 
his  right  hand  to  revile  him.     And  the  Lord  [Jeho- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  207 

vah]  said  unto  Satan,  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  rebuke 
thee,  0  Satan,  even  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  that  hath 
chosen  Jerusalem,  rebuke  thee ;  is  not  this  a  brand 
phicked  out  of  the  fire?  Now  Joshua  was  clothed 
with  filthy  garments,  and  stood  before  the  angel. 
And  he  answered  and  spoke  unto  those  who  stood 
before  him,  saying,  take  away  the  filthy  garments 
from  him.  And  unto  him  he  said,  behold  I  have 
caused  thine  iniquity  to  pass  from  thee."  Kinkade, 
page  151,  says  of  this  passage,  "Here  the  very  Lord 
that  cleansed  Joshua  from  this  iniquity,  is  called  an 
Angel.  If  this  Lord- Angel  is  not  the  Lord  Jesus, 
who  can  he  be  ?"  Thus  we  here  have  the  admission 
of  a  "Christian"  preacher,  that  Jesus  is  the  Angel- 
Jehovah,  and  justly  claims  the  incommunicable  name 
of  the  Supreme,  which  shows  that  there  is  a  plurality 
of  persons  in  the  one  Divine  essence. 

In  Acts  xiii.  39,  it  is  said,  "By  him  [Christ]  all 
that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things;"  which 
plainly  proves  Christ  to  be  the  Jehovah,  for  in  Isaiah 
xlv.  24, 25,  it  is  written,  "  Surely  shall  one  say,  in 
Jehovah  have  I  righteousness  and  strength  :  even  to 
him  shall  men  come,  and  all  that  are  incensed  against 
him  shall  be  ashamed  :  In  Jehovah  shall  all  the  seed 
of  Israel  be  justified,  and  shall  glory."  And  again, 
in  Jeremiah  xxiii.  6,  "  This  is  his  name  whereby  he 
shall  be  called,  Jehovah  our  righteousness." 

So  of  the  Spirit,  Ezekiel  viii.  1,  3,  "The  hand  of 
Adoni  Jehovah  fell  then  upon  me ;  and  he  put  forth 
the  form  of  a  hand,  and  took  me  by  a  lock  of  mine 
hair,  and  the  spirit  lifted  me  up  between  the  earth 
and  the  heavens,  and  brought  me  in  the  visions  of 
God  to  Jerusalem."     In  one  part  of  this  passage  the 


208  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

person  who  took  him  up  is  called  the  spirit.  Two 
hnes  before  that  this  same  person  is  called  Adoni 
Jehovah^  a  name  incommmiicable  to  any  creatm'e, 
and  which  therefore  points  out  the  Spirit  as  the  Su- 
preme and  Eternal  God. 

In  Genesis  xlviii.  15, 16,  it  is  said  of  Jacob,  "And 
he  blessed  Joseph,  and  said,  God  before  whom  my 
fathers  Abraham  and  Isaac  did  walk,  the  God  which 
fed  me  all  my  life  long  unto  this  day,  the  Angel  which 
redeemed  me  from  all  evil,  bless  the  lads."     Kin- 
kade,  page  145,  says,  "  Here  Jacob  calls  his  redeemer 
and  supporter   an  Angel,  and  then  prays  to  that 
Angel  to  bless  his  grandsons."     At  page  151,  it  has 
been  shown  that  he  admits  the  Angel-Jehovah  spo- 
ken of  m  Zechariah  iii.  1,  4,  to  be  the  Lord  Jesus; 
and  at  page  143,  he  admits  the  same  concerning  Ex- 
odus xxiii.  20,  22,  "Behold  I  send  an  Angel  before 
thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to  bring  thee  into 
the  place  which  I  have  prepared :  beware  of  him 
and  obey  his  voice ;  provoke  him  not,  for  he  will 
not  pardon  your  transgressions  ;  for  my  name  is  in 
him :  but  if  thou  shalt  mdeed  obey  his  voice,  and  do 
all  that  /  speak,  then  I  will  be  an  enemy  unto  thy 
enemies,  and  an  adversary  unto  thy  adversaries." 
The  same  is  admitted  by  Kinkade,  page   143,  of 
Exodus  iii.  2,  18,  and  at  page  147,  of  Hosea  xii.  3, 
5.  In  the  passage  quoted  from  Genesis  (xlvih.  15, 16,) 
as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  benediction  of  the 
Holy  Trinity  is  solemnly  and  prayerfully  invoked  by 
an  inspired  man.     Paul  says — "The  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all. 
Amen."     This  is  an  act  of  worship  paid  to  three 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  209 

persons  in  one  God ;  and  so  is  the  administration  of 
baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  this  worship  is  given  to  a 
Trinity  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  in  the  language  of 
the  Seraphim,  praising  the  thrice  Holy  Lord  God 
Almighty,  which  was  and  is  and  is  to  come. 

When  the  Angel  Jehovah  spoke  to  Moses  in  the 
burning  bush  (Exodus  iii.  2,  18.)  admitted  by  Kin- 
kade  to  be  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Moses  did  not  lift 
his  eyes  and  complain  that  he  had  not  talked  plain 
enough  to  him ;  but  he  "  hid  his  face,  for  he  was 
afraid  to  look  upon  God."  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  I  am  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  the  God  of 
Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob." 
Will  this  do  for  a  title  of  the  Eternal  Father  ?  And 
the  Lord  said,  "I  have  seen  the  affliction  of  my 
people  which  are  in  Egypt."  Wliose  people  are 
they  ?  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  "  /  will  be 
with  thee ;  and  this  shall  be  a  token  unto  thee : 
When  thou  hast  brought 'forth  the  people  out  of 
Egypt,  ye  shall  serve  God  upon  this  mountain."  The 
same  divine  person  says,  (Matt,  xviii.  20.)  ^«  Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there 
am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.^^  In  the  ISth  verse 
of  this  3d  chapter  of  Exodus,  the  same  Angel  Jeho- 
vah declares  himself  to  be  the  "  Lord  God  of  the 
Hebrews."  Mr.  Kinkade,  the  brother  of  my  oppo- 
nent, admits  it  to  be  the  Lord  Jesus  who  is  here 
speaking,  and  yet  denies  his  divinity.  That  man 
who  denies  the  Father  and  the  Son,  shall  be  without 
a  drop  of  water  to  all  eternity.  "  This  is  a  deceiver 
and  an  antichrist." 

18* 


210 

MR.  PLUMMER. 
Mr,  Chairman^  Ladies  and  Gentlemen^ 

I  did  not  say  before,  that  Abraham  was  Jehovah, 
or  that  when  Sarah  called  Abraham  Lord,  she  meant 
that  he  was  Jehovah.  For  Jehovah  "  made  Jesus 
to  be  both  Lord  and  Christ.^'  Jesus  said  also,  that 
David  in  Spirit  called  him  Lord :  "  The  Lord  said 
unto  TYiy  Lord,  sit  thou  on  my  right  hand."  Are 
we  here  to  understand  that  there  are  two  Jehovahs  ? 

The  gentleman  says  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
taught  in  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Did  the  Jews 
so  understand  it  ?     No. 

The  gentleman  says  he  never  plays  the  pedant. 
In  the  presence  of  Mr.  Campbell  he  was  accused  of 
this,  but  declined  giving  him  satisfaction.  He  now 
attempts  to  instruct  us  in  Hebrew,  and  to  prove  from 
a  number  of  passages  cited,  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
Jehovah.  I  cannot  think  him  correct.  The  term 
God,  is  used  variously  in  the  Scriptures.  We  will 
now  inquire  for  the  sense  in  which  he  who  has  a  God 
and  Father,  is  called  God.  The  Encyclopedia,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  subject,  says  :  "  The  Hebrew  word  ELO- 
HIM,  generally  translated  God,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  signifies,  Strength,  Power,  Authority,  and 
Dominion,  conveying  the  idea  of  binding  or  restrain- 
ing by  sanctions,  and  of  ruling  and  judging  by  laws. 
It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  angels,  princes, 
great  men,  Judges,  and  even  false  gods,  are  some- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  211 

times  called  by  this  name.  The  sequel  of  the  dis- 
course is  what  assists  us  in  judging  rightly  concern- 
ing the  true  meaning  of  this  word.  It  is  the  same 
as  Eloha.  One  is  the  singular,  the  other  is  the  plu- 
ral. Nevertheless  Elohim  is  often  construed  in  the 
singular  number,  particularly  when  the  true  God  is 
spoken  of :  but  when  false  gods  are  spoken  of,  it  is 
construed  rather  in  the  plural.  See  Exodus  xxxii. 
3,  4.  '  And  all  the  people  brake  off  the  golden 
earings  which  were  in  their  ears,  and  brought  them 
unto  Aaron,  and  he  received  them  at  their  hand,  and 
fasliioned  IT  with  a  graving  tool,  after  he  had  made 
it  a  molten  calf:  and  they  said,  these  be  thy  gods, 
0  Israel.'  The  Greeks  and  Latins,  did  not  mean 
by  the  name  God,  an  all  perfect  being,  whereof  eter- 
nity, infinity,  omnipresence,  &c.  were  essential  attri- 
butes :  with  them,  the  word  only  implied  an  excellent 
and  superior  nature  ;  and  accordingly  they  give  the 
appellation  gods  to  all  beings  of  a  rank  or  class 
higher  and  more  perfect  than  that  of  men ;  and  espe- 
cially to  those  who  were  inferior  agents  in  the  Divine 
administration,  all  subject  to  the  one  Supreme," 

1  have  to  add,  that  Paul  tells  of  a  certain  man  of 
sin,  (2  Thess.ii.  3,4.)  to  be  "revealed,  the  son  of  per- 
dition, who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all 
that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshipped ;  so  that  he, 
a;s  God,  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  him- 
self that  he  is  God."  Does  the  term  God  here  mean 
a  trinity  of  sons  of  perdition  ? 

And  "  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  see,  I  have  made 
thee  a  God  unto  Pharaoh."  (Ex.  vii.  1.)  Did  he 
make  him  a  Trinity  of  Gods  } 


212  PtUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

We  will  now  give  you  a  few  irrefutable  passages 
in  support  of  our  doctrine. 

"  To  God  only  wise,  be  glory  through  Jesus  Christ 
for  ever.    Amen."     Rom.  xvi.  27. 

"  Unto  God  be  glory  in  the  church  by  Christ  Je- 
su^,  throughout  all  ages,  world  without  end.  Amen." 
Ephes.  iii.  21. 

"  Now  unto  the  King  eternal,  immortal,  invisible, 
the  ONLY  WISE  God,  be  honor  and  glory,  for  ever 
and  ever."     1  Tim.  i.  17. 

"Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lo?^d 
Jesus  Christ.''     1  Pet.  i.  3. 

"  Grace  be  to  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father 
and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''     Eph.  i.  2. 

"  The  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father 
of  glory,  give  unto  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom."  Eph. 
i.   17. 

"  Grace  be  with  you,  mercy,  and  peace  from  God 
the  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  the  Father,  in  truth  and  love."    2  John  3. 

"  The  God  of  all  grace,  who  hath  called  us  unto 
his  eternal  glory  by  Christ  Jesus,  make  you  perfect. 
To  him  be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen."     1  Peter  v.  10. 

"  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee  0  Father, 
Lord  of  Heaven  and  earth  !"     Matt.  xi.  25. 

John  XX.  1 7.  "  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  touch  me 
not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  my  Father ;  but 
go  to  my  brethren  and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend 
unto  MY  Father  and  your  Father  to  my  God  and 
your  God !" 

Here  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  asserts  to  his  brethren, 
that  their  God  and  Father  is  his  God  and  Father. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  213 

Isaiah  xliv.  6.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  the  King  of 
Israel,  and  his  (Israel's)  Redeemer  the  Lord  of 
hosts :  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last,  and  besides 
ME  there  is  no  God.'' 

Isaiah  xlv.  5.  "  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none 
ELSE  :  there  is  no  God  besides  me." 

Isaiah  xlvi.  9.  "  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  : 
I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me." 

Isaiah  xliv.*  24.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  thy  Redee- 
mer, and  he  that  formed  thee  from  the  womb,  I  am 
THE  Lord  that  maketh  all  things,  that  stretcheth 
forth  the  heavens  alone,  that  spreadeth  abroad  the 
earth  by  myself." 

Deut.  xxxii,  39.  "I,  even  I  am  he,  and  there  is 
NO  God  with  me." 

Zechariah  xiv.  9.  "In  that  day  shall  there  be 
one  Lord  and  his  name  one." 

Mark  xii.  29.  "Hear,  0  Israel!  the  Lord  our 
God  is  one  Lord." 

Isaiah  xlii.  1.  "Behold  my  servant,  whom  I 
uphold :  mine  elect  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth : 
I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him." 

John  xvii.  3.  "  Father  !  this  is  life  eternal,  that 
they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesits  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent."  This  text 
offers  a  complete  refutation  of  the  doctrme  of  the 
Trinity. 

1  Tim.  ii.  5.  "There  is  one  God:  and  one  Medi- 
ator between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 

Acts  xvii.  24,  31.  "God  that  m.ade  the  world  and 
all  things  therein,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth, 
hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath 


214  PLUMMER  AND  M'cALLA's 

ordained :  whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all 
men,  in  that  he  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

The  gentleman  says  he  raised  himself  from  the 
dead ! 

1  Cor.  viii.  5,  6.  "  There  be  Gods  many  and  Lords 
many;  but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father; 
and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,^' 

Ephes.  iv.  5,  6.  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and 
through  all,  and  in  you  all." 

Above  your  second  and  third  co-eternals  ! 

Ephes.  i.  17.  "The  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Father  of  glory." 

Ephes.  i.  3.  "  Blessed  be  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  blessed  us  with 
all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ." 

Philippians  i.  2.  "Grace  be  unto  you  and  peace 
from  God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.'' 

1  Cor.  XV.  24.  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he 
[Jesus]  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to 
God  even  the  Father." 

Mark  xiii.  32.  "  Of  that  day  and  that  hour  know- 
eth  no  man,  no  not  the  angels  which  are  in  heaven, 
neither  the  Son;  but  the  Father." 

John  xiv.  1.  "Ye  believe  in  God;  believe  also 
in  me." 

Mark  x.  18.  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  There 
is  none  good,  but  one  ;  that  is  God." 

John  xiv.  28.  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I." 

John  V.  19.  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  the  Son  can 
do  nothing  of  himself" 

John  viii.  40.  "Ye   seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  215 

hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I  have  heard  of 
God.'' 

John  xvii.  2.  "  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over 
all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life  to  as  many 
as  thou  hast  given  him." 

2  Peter  i.  17.  "He  received  from  God,  the  Fa- 
ther, honor  and  glory.'' 

These  are  not  inferences — they  are  the  words  of 
eternal  truth — "  words  of  the  Spirit. ^^ 

Acts.  X.  38.  "How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  who 
went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were 
oppressed  of  the  devil:  for  God  was  with  him." 

John  X.  36.  "  Him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanc- 
tified, and  sent  into  the  world." 

Luke  ii.  52.  "  Jesus  increased  in  wisdom  and 
stature,  and  in  favor  both  with  God  and  man." 

Hebrews  v.  8.  "Though  he  were  a  Son,  yet 
LEARNED  HE  OBEDIENCE,  by  the  thlugs  which  he 
suffered." 

Did  God  ever  learn  obedience  ? 

Hebrews  ii.  10.  "It  became  him  to  make  the 
captain  of  their  salvation  perfect  through  suf- 
ferings." 

John  xi.  41,42.  "Father!  I  thank  thee  that  thou 
hast  heard  me.  And  I  knew  that  thou  hearest  me 
always," 

Acts  iii.  22.  "  For  Moses  truly  said  unto  the  fa- 
thers, A  PROPHET  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up 
unto  you,  of  your  brethren,  like  unto  Twe." 

Actsii,  36.  "Know  assuredly  that  God  hath  made 
that  same  Jesus  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord 
and  Christ.'' 


216  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

Acts  V.  31.  "Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his 
right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour." 

2  Thess.  ii.  16,  17.  "  Now  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  a?id  God,  even  our  Father,  comfort  your 
hearts." 

Acts  i.  2.  "  Until  the  day  in  which  he  was  taken 
up,  after  that  he  through  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
given  commandments  unto  the  apostles  whom  he 
had  chosen." 

Acts  ii.  33.  "  Jesus,  being  by  the  right  hand  of 
God  exalted,  and  having  received  of  the  Father 
the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this, 
which  ye  now  see  and  hear." 

John  V.  26, 27.  "As  the  Father  hath  life  in  him- 
self, so  HATH  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  Hfe  in 
himself,  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  execute 
judgment  also,  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man." 

He  received  his  life  from  his  Father — he  never 
denied  it. 

We  have  been  attacked  by  the  gentleman — call- 
ed God-denying  heretics — and  challenged  to  meet 
this  Goliath  of  the  Presbyterians.  It  was  boasted 
that  we  were  to  be  met  and  put  down  on  our  own 
ground.  We  have  accepted  his  challenge,  and  what 
has  he  proved  ?  Has  he  proved  their  Confession  of 
Faith  a  better  book  than  the  word  of  God  ?  Has  he 
proved  us  to  be  God-denying  heretics,  because  we 
reject  all  but  the  word  of  God  ?  Has  he,  after  all, 
proved  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — a  plurality  in 
the  divine  essence,  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  one  plain,  positive  passage 
from  the  word  of  God  ?   No  !   Has  he  proved  that  it 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  217 

is  not  absurd  to  say  there  are  more  Gods  than  one  ? 
His  best  proofs  from  the  Bible  have  been  merely  in- 
ferential, derived  from  detached  passages,  the  con- 
nection of  which  shows  a  different  doctrme.  To  sus- 
tain his  favorite  position,  he  must  violate  the  imi- 
form  meaning  of  language,  and  all  analogy.  He 
says  his  doctrine  is  a  certain  indescribable,  incom- 
prehensible mystery !  Has  he  made  it  appear  that 
the  invisible,  unchangeable  God,  assumed  the  nature 
and  every  thing  common  to  man  in  one  visible  per- 
son, and  that  this  God-man  died  without  change  in 
.Jehovah  ?  By  what  authority  does  he  say  that  the 
Eternal  God  became  man,  and  that  this  man  is  the 
Son  of  God  who  died  for  our  sins  ?  But  he  says  he 
does  not  believe  the  Son  of  God  died.  We  say  he 
did! — that  "we  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
of  his  Son.'^  Rom.  v.  10.  My  opponent  sustains 
his  arguments  by  absurdities  and  contradictions. 

I  have  done  with  the  gentleman.  We  acknowledge 
no  other  guide  than  this  book.  We  believe  in  the 
God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  con- 
fess the  Son  as  the  Son  of  the  Father  in  truth  and 
love ;  and  believe  in  him.  A  Christian  is  one  who 
believes  in  Christ,  and  walks  agreeably  to  the  infalhble 
word  of  God.  But  the  gentleman  wishes  us  to  lay 
it  aside  for  an  absurd  invention  of  men — this  creed 
of  four  hundred  pages  ! 

What  have  we  done }  We  have  given  you  the 
origin  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  We  have 
shown  that  this  creed  was  begotten  at  some  period 
of  the  fourth  century,  by  violent  and  corrupt  priests 
seeking  for  place,  and  more  corrupt  bishops,  with 

19 


218 

three  shaped  hats,  gorgeous  appointments,  and 
pockets  filled  with  money.  We  have  shown  it  to  be 
a  system  of  men,  influenced  by  haughtiness  and 
pride,  envy  and  hatred,  enslaved  to  avarice  and  am- 
bition, and  carried  away  with  views  of  temporal 
grandeur,  high  preferments,  and  large  revenues.  We 
have  shown,  that  the  language  of  this  creed  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  Bible,  and  hence  that  its  doctrine  is 
not  there.  We  have  not  felt  pinched  by  a  single  ar- 
gument of  our  opponent  in  support  of  his  creed. 
If  every  argument  has  not  been  met  and  refuted,  it 
has  only  been  for  want  of  time.  But  for  want  of 
argument,  the  gentleman  has  resorted  to  sophistry, 
ridicule,  calmimy,  and  angry  mimicry.  Our  doctrine, 
we  have  proved,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  and  in 
Bible  language.  We  rejoice  that  we  have  not  a 
system  of  religion  to  make,  but  to  receive  that  which 
God  has  revealed  in  his  Holy  Word. 

We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Spirit  that  moved 
upon  the  waters,  and  in  "  one  Lord  Jesus  Ch7nst.'^ 
To  sustain  us  in  this  belief,  we  have  the  plain,  posi- 
tive, uniform  declarations  of  God,  his  Son,  the  Pro- 
phets and  Apostles.  We  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Messiah  sent,  and  this  is  proved  by  his  birth,  life, 
miracles,  crucifixion,  resurrection,  and  exaltation. 
At  his  death,  all  nature  moved,  but  this  could  not 
have  been  the  God  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  for  he  is  without  variation  or  shadow  of  turn- 
ing. We  have  no  other  creed  to  ofl'er  you,  than  the 
sayings  of  Jesus,  who,  when  hunted  by  Jews  and 
Rabbles,  retired  to  the  mountains  and  pronounced  his 
blessed  sayings  to  the  assembled  multitude :    "  He 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  219 

that  heareth  these  sayings,  and  doeth  them,  (he  de- 
clares) I  will  liken  him  unto  the  wise  man  who  built 
his  house  upon  a  rock ;"  but  "  he  that  heareth  these 
my  sayings  and  doeth  them  not,  I  will  liken  unto  the 
foolish  man  who  built  his  house  upon  the  sand.'^ 

Unto  him  who  hath  come  to  curse  Israel,  and 
anathematize  us  Christians,  I  would  also  say,  hear 
the  words  of  Jesus — "Judge  not  that  ye  be  not 
judged — why  beholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy 
brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in 
thine  own  eye —  Thou  hypocrite !  first  cast  out  the 
beam  that  is  in  thine  own  eye,  and  then  shalt  thou 
see  clearly  to  pull  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's 
eye." 

One  word  to  those  who  sent  for  him  to  come  and 
ciurse  Israel.  Unlike  Balaam  of  old,  he  has  said 
many  things  which  God  never  commanded.  After 
Balak  had  sent  his  princes  for  Balaam,  and  brought 
him  to  the  country  of  the  Moabites  to  curse  Israel, 
the  Moabites  and  Midianites  offered  their  sacrifices 
on  their  seven  altars,  at  three  diflferent  places,  at  each 
of  which  they  said,  "  Come  curse  me  Jacob  and  defy 
Israel !"  And  Balaam  said,  "  How  shall  I  curse 
whom  God  hath  not  cursed ;  and  how  shall  I  defy 
whom  God  hath  not  defied?"  And  Balaam  cursed 
not,  but  blessed  Israel.  "  And  Balak's  anger  was 
kindled  against  Balaam,  and  he  smote  his  hands  to- 
gether :  and  Balak  said  unto  Balaam,  I  called  thee 
to  curse  mine  enemies,  and,  behold,  thou  hast  alto- 
gether blessed  them  these  three  times.  Therefore 
now  flee  thou  to  thy  place :  I  thought  to  promote 
thee  unto  great  honor ;  but,  lo,  the  Lord  hath  kept 


220  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 

thee  back  from  honor.  And  Balaam  said  unto  Ba- 
lak,  Spake  I  not  also  to  thy  messengers  which  thou 
sentest  unto  me,  saying,  If  Balak  would  give  me  his 
house  full  of  silver  and  gold,  I  cannot  go  beyond  the 
commandment  of  the  Lord,  to  do  either  good  or 
bad  of  mine  own  mind ;  but  what  the  Lord  saith, 
that  will  I  speak  ?"  Numb.  xxiv.  10 — 13.  Although 
Balaam  loved  the  wages  of  unrighteousness,  he  would 
not  say  what  the  Lord  had  not  commanded. 

And  now,  what  hath  God  said  to  us  ?  "  This  is 
my  beloved  Son — ^liear  ye  him  !"  There  is  no  other 
name  given  by  which  to  obtain  salvation. 

Oh,  ye  Moabites,  Elomites,  Midianites  and  Edom- 
ites,  the  day  is  fast  approaching  which  shall  try  your 
foundation !  Then  you  all  will  say,  like  Balaam, 
"  Let  me  die  the  death  of  the  righteous,  and  let  my 
last  end  be  like  his  !"  To  obtain  that  glorious  bless- 
ing, you  have  all  got  to  acknowledge  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  your  Saviour.  As  God  has  said  by  that 
magnanimous  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  "  If  thou  shalt 
confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt 
believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart 
man  belie veth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the 
mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salvation  !" 

Oh,  ye  Delawarians  !  turn  from  the  doctrines  and 
commandments  of  men — turn  from  those  who  would 
curse  whom  God  would  bless — turn  from  sin  to  God, 
and  confess  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ !  Take  the  ivord 
of  God  as  a  "  light  to  your  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  your 
path."     The  day  has   gone  by  when  those  can  be 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  221 

put  to  death,  who  reject  the  systems  of  men  and  the 
dogmas  of  Priestcraft ! 

To  the  Board  of  Moderators  I  return  thanks  for 
the  patience,  candor,  and  impartiaUty,  with  which 
they  have  presided  over  our  deliberations.  I  thank 
God  that  through  the  blood  of  his  Son  and  the  blood 
of  our  forefathers,  we  enjoy  the  privilege  of  meet- 
ing to  reason  out  of  the  Scriptures,  and  discuss  these 
deeply  interesting  and  important  topics,  with  none 
to  molest  or  make  us  afraid. 

[Prayer  by  Mr.  Plummer — but  within  his  half- 
hour.] 


Hon.  George  G.  Leiper,  of  the  Board  of  Mode- 
rators, stated,  at  the  close  of  Mr.  Plummer's  address, 
that,  as  the  time  had  expired,  for  which  the  present 
Board  had  been  appointed,  it  would  be  necessary 
for  the  meeting  to  suggest  what  course  should  be 
now  pursued. 

Mr.  M^Calla  said  he  was  very  well  satisfied 
with  the  discussion  so  far,  but  he  wanted  a  little 
more.  He  would  therefore  go  on  and  finish  his 
arguments. 

Rev:  Mr.  Cooper,  in  order  to  test  the  sense  of  the 
meeting,  moved  that  the  Hon.  George  G.  Leiper  be 
again  requested  to  take  the  Chair,  and  the  Reporter 
to  act  as  Secretary.     [Carried.] 

Rev.  Mr.  Helme  suggested,  that  the  present  Board 
19* 


222  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

of  Moderators  be  requested  to  retain  their  seats,  and 
the  discussion  proceed  as  heretofore. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hall  said  he  felt  most  sensibly  the  com- 
pliment intended.  When  he  consented  to  serve  as  a 
member  of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  he  was  satis- 
fied that  he  could  not,  consistently  with  his  other 
duties,  remain  longer  than  Friday  noon.  Circum- 
stances, however,  might  perhaps  allow  him  to  re- 
main during  the  afternoon  session.  But  longer 
than  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to  remain. 
No  person  could  feel  a  deeper  interest  in  the  subject 
under  discussion,  but  he  should  be  compelled  to 
request  the  meeting  to  excuse  him  after  to-day. 

Mr.  M^Calla  said  that  no  longer  than  to-day  did 
he  wish  the  audience  to  give  their  attendance. 

Mr.  Scholejield  said  it  would  be  out  of  his  power 
to  remain  any  longer,  and  he  must  therefore  decline 
the  compliment  intended. 

Mr.  Helme.  As  Mr.  Hall  also  desires  to  be  ex- 
cused, the  remaining  three  members  of  the  Board 
might  be  requested  to  remain,  and  the  discussion 
proceed. 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper  approved  of  this  suggestion. 
The  three  respectable  gentlemen  who  would  then 
constitute  the  Board,  would  be  able  to  maintain 
order,  and  further  action  on  the  part  of  the  meeting 
thus  rendered  unnecessary. 

Mr,  Plummer  remarked,  that  he  had  but  two 
objections  to  remaining.  One  was  sickness  in  his 
family — ^the  other  an  unwillingness  to  trespass  farther 
on  the  patience  of  the  assembly.  He  thought  no- 
thing farther  of  interest  would  be  elicited.     He  was 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  OX  THE  TRINITY.  223 

willing,  however,  to  be  governed  by  the  wishes  of 
the  audience.  He  had  embarked  in  the  discussion 
with  the  expectation  of  closing  to-day.  He  was 
desirous  to  gratify  the  assembly ;  o.nd,  hereafter, 
should  be  willing  again  to  meet  the  gentleman,  if 
it  was  thought  expedient.  At  the  present  time, 
however,  he  thought  a  majority  of  the  audience 
was  in  favor  of  now  closing  the  discussion. 

Mr.  M^Calla  said  the  rules  gave  to  the  parties 
the  right  of  speaking  until  each  should  be  satisfied. 
He  had  no  doubt  his  opponent  thought  the  discus- 
sion should  now  close ;  but  he  was  of  a  different 
opinion. 

Rev.  Mr.  Cooper  moved  that  the  meeting  do  now 
adjourn,  to  convene  again  at  half  past  one,  P.  iNF. 
The  rules  had  given  to  the  parties  the  right  of  being 
heard  until  they  were  satisfied. 

Mr.  Sketchley  Morton  was  "  for  justice,  though 
the  heavens  do  fall.''  By  the  rules  adopted,  the 
discussion  was  to  be  continued  until  12  o'clock 
to-day,  when  the  present  Board  ceased  to  exist,  and 
the  discussion  necessarily  closed,  miless  the  parties 
were  mutually  desirous  that  it  should  be  continued. 

Mr.  Plummer  said  he  had  no  objection  to  pro- 
ceed with  the  discussion,  if  it  could  be  brought  to 
a  close  the  present  afternoon. 

Mr.  Charles  H.  Plummer  said,  he  thought  it 
would  be  improper  to  submit  a  question  of  this  kind 
to  the  meeting,  without  consulting  the  wishes  of  the 
parties  immediately  concerned.  The  consent  of  one 
party  had  been  obtained,  but  it  seemed  to  be  the 


224  PLUMMER  AND  M'cALLA's 

determination  of  some  present,  to  utterly  disregard 
the  wishes  of  the  other  party. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hall  hoped  that  the  apprehensions  of 
Mr.  M'Calia,  in  relation  to  this  discussion,  would 
not  prove  to  have  been  prophetic.  He  had  posi- 
tively assured  the  meeting  that  he  would  rather  die^ 
than  agree  to  waive  his  right  to  reply  to  the  argu- 
ments of  his  opponent.  With  a  full  knowledge  of 
this  fact,  the  rules  had  been  adopted,  and  by  no  act 
of  theirs  could  the  meeting  nullify  the  right  of  the 
parties  "to  be  heard  until  they  were  satisfied."  He 
also  was  "for  justice,  though  the  heavens  do  fall." 
He  trusted,  however,  that  the  baser  passions  would 
not  here  be  suffered  to  gain  the  ascendency — that 
all  would  conduct  like  men,  and  not  degrade  them- 
selves to  something  beneath  man.  For  the  honor 
of  Delaware  county,  he  hoped  none  of  her  citizens 
would  be  urged  to  imbrue  their  hands  in  blood. 

Mi\  Sketchley  Morton.  The  gentleman  says  the 
arrangement  was  fully  explained  and  understood. 
My  own  understanding  of  the  rules  was,  that  the 
duties  of  the  Board  ceased  to-day  at  12  o'clock,  and 
that  a  farther  continuance  of  the  discussion  was 
optional  with  the  parties. 

The  Chairman  remarked  that  the  rules  them- 
selves were  the  best  evidence. 

Mr.  M^  Calla  said  that  as  the  other  party  had  an- 
nounced to  the  audience  that  he  had  made  his  closing 
speech,  he  wished  it  to  be  understood  that  he  should 
claim  the  right  to  occupy  the  whole  of  the  two  hours 
this  afternoon. 

Mr.  Cooper.     As  Mr.  Plummer  has  partly  con- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  225 

sented  to  continue  the  debate,  such  a  course,  it  seems 
to  me,  would  be  entirely  improper.  The  meeting  is 
as  solemnly  bound  to  hear  Mr.  Plummer  as  it  is  to 
hear  Mr.  M'Calla.  If  it  be  decided  that  the  dis- 
cussion shall  go  on,  the  gentleman  shall  be  heard 
alternately  as  heretofore,  "imtil  they  are  satisfied." 
If  Mr.  Plummer  does  not  conclude  to  remain,  then, 
and  then  only,  will  Mr.  M'Calla  be  justly  entitled  to 
the  whole  of  the  two  hours. 

Mr.  Plummer.  Under  existing  circumstances,  I 
think  it  would  be  folly  to  continue  the  discussion.  I 
have  mtimated  my  willingness  to  remain  for  the  rest 
of  the  day,  if  the  debate  could  then  be  brought  to  a 
termination.  It  is  evident,  however,  from  the  re- 
marks of  my  opponent,  that  such  a  result  is  not  to 
be  expected. — The  gentleman  would  be  no  more  sa- 
tisfied, at  the  close  of  the  day,  than  he  is  at  present. 
He  would  claim  the  right  to  be  heard  again  to-mor- 
row, for  it  is  very  apparent  that  he  is  determined  to 
have  the  last  speech. 

[Mr.  Cooper's  motion  for  an  adjourment  prevailed, 
and  it  was  stated  from  the  Chair  that  INIr.  M'Calla 
would  be  heard  for  two  hours,  commencing  at  half 
past  one  P.  M.,  unless  the  meeting  should  then  other- 
wise determine.] 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY. 


It  is  due  to  the  gentlemen  who  acted  as  jNIodera- 
tors  in  the  foregoing  debate,  that  the  following  pro- 
ceedings should  be  recorded  : — 

Mr.  Charles  H.  Plummer  here  said,  the  discus- 
sion having  closed,  according  to  the  rules  adopted 
for  the  government  of  the  debate,  and  as  a  majority 
of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  is  not  to  be  present  at 
the  contemplated  afternoon  session,  he  would  pro- 
pose the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  assembly  be  and 
hereby  are  presented,  to  the  Board  of  Moderators, 
for  the  gentlemanly  and  impartial  manner  in  which 
they  have  presided  over  the  deliberations  of  this 
body. 

The  resolution  was  seconded,  the  question  taken, 
and  carried  by  acclamation. 


TO  THE   READER. 


The  following  proceedings  which  took  place  after 
we  had  left,  and  the  address  by  Mr.  M'Calla,  the 
Reporter  has  given  as  a  part  of  the  discussion,  and 
says  that  Mr.  M'Calla  claims  their  admission.  But 
we  do  not  consider  them  a  legitimate  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion ;  because  the  rules  formed  by  the  Modera- 
tors for  the  regulation  of  the  debate  with  which  we 
stood  connected,  expressly  provided,  that  the  Board 
of  Moderators  should  continue  until  Friday  at  12 
o'clock,  when  their  duties  should  cease,  and  the  dis- 
cussion accordingly  close. 

These  rules  we  signed,  and  considered  them  bind- 
ing upon  us.  We  agreed  to  no  other.  Mr.  M'Calla 
signed  no  rules — therefore  was  not  bound  by  any; 
but  contended  that  he  had  a  right  to  speak  until  he 
was  satisfied,  and  a  part  of  the  audience  remained 
and  heard  him  two  hours  in  the  afternoon.  That 
there  may  be  no  cause  of  complaint,  from  him  or 
his  friends,  we,  with  the  Society  at  Ridley,  consent 
to  their  admission,  which  we  think,  however,  justly 
entitles  us  to  the  reply  subjoined. 

F.  PLUMMER. 


(227) 


228  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 


Friday,  ^  past  1,  P.  M. 

Met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  The  Hon.  George 
G.  Leiper  took  the  chair,  and  the  Reporter  acted  as 
Secretary. 

A  message  was  received  from  Mr.  Eves,  President 
of  the  Board  of  Moderators,  stating  that  he  should 
not  be  able  to  attend. 

Mr.  Morton  also  declined  serving.  He  said  the 
understanding  was,  when  the  rules  were  framed,  that 
a  Board  of  Moderators  was  to  be  continued  so  long 
as  the  discussion  continued.  When  he  consented  to 
retain  his  seat  at  the  Board,  it  was  with  the  expecta- 
tion that  the  parties  were  to  occupy  alternate  half 
houi^  as  heretofore.  Mr.  M'Calla,  however,  had 
stated  that  he  wanted  the  two  hours  to  himself. 
Such  was  his  understanding  of  the  matter,  and  such 
he  believed  to  be  the  understanding  of  others.  He 
therefore  resigned,  for  he  did  not  wish  to  continue  as 
a  member  of  the  Board,  while  only  one  party  was 
to  speak.  [It  was  moved  to  excuse  Mr.  Morton 
from  serving,  but  the  motion  was  not  sustamed  by 
the  meeting.] 

Mr.  M^  Calla  believed  that  all  present  were  aware, 
that  he  had  not  claimed  for  himself  any  exclusive 
privileges.  He  had  contended  from  the  first  that  the 
parties  should  be  heard  until  they  were  satisfied. 
It  was  only  after  Mr.  Plmmner  had  declared  that  he 
"had  done,"  that  he  (Mr.  M'C.)  had  expressed  his 
intention  to  occupy  the  whole  of  the  two  hours  this 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  229 

afternoon.  But  if  the  people,  the  ]Moderators,  or  the 
authorities  of  the  house,  objected  to  his  proceeding, 
he  was  ready  to  stop. 

Mr.  Morton  said  that  Mr.  Plummer  had  agreed 
to  continue  the  discussion  for  two  hours  this  after- 
noon, but  not  that  Mr.  M'Calla  should  have  the 
whole  time  to  himself. 

Rev.  Mr.  Cooper.  It  has  been  said  that  the  dis- 
cussion is  ended.  I  understood  that  the  meetmg 
was  to  re-assemble  at  half-past  one,  and  that  the  de- 
bate was  to  be  continued  as  before.  The  discussion 
has  not  been  closed  by  the  meeting,  nor  has  it  been 
closed  by  the  Moderators.  Nor  do  I  understand  by 
what  authority  IMr.  M'Calla  has  a  right  to  say  that 
he  will  speak  for  two  hours.  The  Board  of  Mode- 
rators have  the  right,  as  heretofore,  to  govern  the 
discussion.  If  Mr.  Plummer  waives  his  right  to  be 
heard  at  the  expiration  of  Mr.  M'Calla's  half  hour, 
then  Mr.  M'Calla  has  a  right  to  proceed,  but  not 
otherwise. 

Mr.  Morton  desired  the  meeting  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  they  had  refused  to  excuse  him  from 
serving  as  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Moderators. — 
He  could  not  consent  to  serve,  for  he  considered  the 
discussion  as  ended. 

Mr.  Cooper  moved  that  the  meeting  proceed  to 
fill  vacancies.     [Carried.] 

Mr.  S.  M.  Leiper  thought,  as  a  consequence  of 
Mr.  Plummer's  absence,  Mr.  M'Calla  had  the  right 
to  proceed  for  two  hours. 

Mr.  Morton.     The  view  which  has  been  taken 
of  this  matter,  it  seems  to  me,  is  not  correct.     We 
20 


230 

cannot  be  expected  to  stay  here  for  a  month.  Mr. 
M'Calla  may  contmue  as  long  as  he  pleases,  but  for 
one,  I  consider  the  discussion  as  ended.  I  cannot, 
therefore,  consent  to  serve  at  the  Board. 

Rev,  Mr.  Hall.  I  do  not  consider  my  friend 
Morton  bound  to  act  as  a  member  of  the  Board,  but 
I  cannot  agree  with  him  in  every  particular.  He 
had  a  right  to  resign  at  twelve  o'clock,  or  after;  but, 
by  the  rules,  that  does  not  end  the  discussion.  If 
Mr.  M'Calla  chooses  to  continue  for  twelve  months, 
according  to  the  rules,  the  discussion  is  the  same. 

The  Chair  thought  it  very  clear  that  the  Board 
of  Moderators  had  a  right  to  resign  at  or  after  twelve 
o'clock,  and  he  therefore  hoped  that  the  meeting 
would  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  it  had  refused 
to  excuse  Mr.  Morton.  [The  vote  was  accordingly 
reconsidered  and  Mr.  Morton  excused.] 

Mr.  M^  Calla  said,  Mr.  Plummer  had  announced 
to  the  audience,  that  he  was  making  his  closing 
speech.  He  had  supposed,  therefore,  that  according 
to  the  rules  he  had  a  right  to  proceed  until  he  was 
satisfied. 

[It  was  finally  arranged  that  the  Board  should 
consist  of  three  instead  of  five  members ;  and  Rev. 
Mr.  Cooper  was  appointed  to  supply  the  vacancy 
occasioned  by  the  absence  of  Mr.  Eves.] 

Mr.  Cooper  said  he  did  not  feel  that  it  would  be 
right  for  him  to  occupy  a  seat  at  the  Board,  as  it 
would  then  be  composed  entirely  of  Trinitarians. 
A  report  of  the  discussion,  he  understood,  was  to 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  231 

be  printed,  and  such  a  course  might  appear  unjust 
towards  Mr.  Plummer.  He  thought  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Plummer,  as  Mr.  Morton  had  resigned,  should 
be  allowed  to  fill  the  vacancy. 

[The  objections  of  Mr.  Cooper  were  finally  over- 
ruled, the  meeting  adjourned,  the  Moderators  took 
their  seats,  and  at  2  o'clock,  P.  M.,  Mr.  M'Calla 
resumed  his  argument.  His  closing  address  was 
substantially  as  follows  ;1 


232  PLUMMER  AND  m'CALLA's 


MR.  M'CALLA. 


When  I  came  here,  it  was  my  expectation  that 
the  rules  of  this  discussion  would  be  prepared  and 
settled  by  the  parties.  My  respected  audience  will 
remember,  that  when,  at  the  solicitation  of  my  oppo- 
nent, the  framing  of  these  rules  was  taken  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  parties,  to  be  adjusted  by  a  bench  of 
Moderators,  in  the  nomination  of  which  I  dechned 
acting,  and  to  be  adopted  by  this  assembly,  to 
whose  jurisdiction  in  the  case  I  respectfully  demur- 
red. I  withdi'ew  my  name  from  the  lists,  as  not 
wishing  to  promise  a  contest  by  any  rules  but  those 
of  which  my  own  conscience  could  approve.  One 
thing  to  which  I  expressly  declared  that  I  could  not 
yield,  was  giving  to  others  the  right  of  guiding,  in- 
terrupting, or  limiting  my  argument.  To  bring  the 
rules  within  the  pale  of  my  own  conscience,  the 
bench  and  the  house  were  so  kind  as  to  insert  a 
clause,  allowing  the  debate  to  continue  until  the 
parties  were  satisfied.  This  was  indispensable  to 
my  engaging  in  the  discussion,  as  my  adversary 
would  be  apt,  according  to  custom,  to  throw  into  his 
last  speech,  his  red  hot  shot,  because  I  should  not 
be  allowed  an  answer.  To  limit  me  in  the  argu- 
ment, would  have  been  peculiarly  wrong  as  the 
bench  and  the  house  adopted  the  unprecedented 
arrangement,  giving  to  my  opponent  the  last  speech 
of  every  forenoon  and  every  afternoon,  while  he 
chose  to  continue  the  discussion.     For  this  reason 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.       233 

it  is,  that  he  and  his  adherents  exhibited  so  much 
zeal  this  morning  in  an  effort  to  close  the  discussion 
with  his  closing  speech.  That  speech  contained 
some  things  which  were  so  grossly  false,  and  cru- 
elly unjust,  that  every  principle  of  goodness  and 
fairness,  generosity  and  justice,  requires  that  I 
should  enjoy  the  liberty  secured  to  me  in  the  rules, 
of  speaking  mitil  I  am  satisfied.  If  he  were  still 
here,  I  should  be  pleased  to  continue  the  argument, 
with  the  leave  of  God  and  this  kind  people,  for 
several  days.  But  now,  in  his  absence,  I  a'Sk  no- 
thing more  than  your  patient  attention,  during  the 
two  hours  alloted  to  an  afternoon,  by  the  rules. 

I  have  frequently  had  occasion  to  show  you,  that 
my  opponent  was  guilty  of  very  great  and  injurious 
misrepresentations,  in  some  of  which  he  even  pre- 
tended to  read  to  you,  very  exact  notes  penned  by 
himself  from  my  lips.  And  I  have  taken  the  liberty 
of  showing  you  irreconcilable  discrepancies  between 
his  notes  and  my  words,  and  even  his  notes  and  his 
own  words,  and  between  one  note  and  another  note 
of  his  own.  Such  reporters  as  he  and  my  former 
antagonists,  take  such  boundless  liberties,  that  they 
could,  if  believed,  swear  me  under  the  gallows  at 
any  moment.  On  the  present  occasion,  I  must  refer 
you  to  his  false  imputation  of  a  doctrine  to  me, 
which  for  me  to  believe,  after  the  solenm  vows 
which  I  have  taken  to  the  contrar^^,  would  make  me 
a  worse  man  than  an  ordinary  horse-thief.  He  has 
told  you,  that  I  have  declared,  repeatedly  and  em- 
phatically, in  your  presence,  that  the  Divinity  is 
changed  into  humanity,  though  he  knows  that  I 
20* 


234  PLUMMER  AND  m'c ALLANS 

have,  with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  adopted  a  creed 
which  denies  this  change  or  conversion  of  Deity  into 
humanity.  And  to  show  his  desire  to  wrong  me  in 
this  false  assertion,  he  has  quoted  that  creed  to  you, 
which  declares  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God  is  without  conversion,  composition  or  confusion. 
As  we  believe,  in  opposition  to  the  Patripassions, 
that  the  Saviour  is  the  second  person  of  the  God- 
head in  human  nature,  and  not  the  first  nor  the  third, 
thus  making  a  confusion  of  the  persons,  so  we  be- 
Heve,  in  opposition  to  the  Swedenborgians,  that  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  is  a  real  created  himianity, 
and  not  a  divine  humanity  by  a  conversion  of  deity 
into  humanity.  And  we  believe  also,  that  after  the 
incarnation  the  person  of  Christ  is  not  a  tertiuni 
quid,  as  the  chemists  say,  formed  by  the  composition 
of  two  other  and  diiierent  ingredients :  but  this  per- 
son of  Christ  has  in  close,  intimate,  mysterious  union, 
two  distinct  natures,  as  distinct  in  their  union  as  be- 
fore the  Saviour's  birth.  This  may  be  illustrated  by 
a  reference  to  our  OAvn  nature.  Each  individual  of 
this  audience,  has  in  his  one  person  two  distinct 
beings,  the  one  material  and  the  other  immaterial. 
So  perfectly  distinct  are  they,  though  united,  that  at 
the  hour  of  death,  this  material  being  may  lose  its 
consciousness,  and  sleep  and  dissolve  in  the  earth, 
while  the  immaterial  being  may  retain  its  conscious- 
ness and  ascend  to  the  Paradise  of  God,  there  to  await 
the  resuscitation  of  the  body  when  this  material  being 
and  this  immaterial  being  shall  be  re-united  in  one 
person.  The  mind  is  not  changed  into  the  body, 
nor  is  the  body  converted  into  the  mind — without  this 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  235 

conversion  they  form  one  person.  So  in  the  person 
of  our  Saviour,  the  divinity  is  not  converted  into  the 
humanity,  nor  the  humanity  into  the  Divinity.  The 
tAvo  natures  are  distinct  and  unchanged,  while  united 
in  one  divine  and  adorable  person. 

[Mr.  M'Calla  was  here  interrupted  by  the  Board 
of  Moderators,  and  the  Hon.  George  G.  Leiper  stated, 
that  as  the  half  hour  had  expired,  Mr.  Plummer,  if 
present,  was  entitled  to  his  half  hour  as  heretofore. 

Mr.  Hehne  moved,  that  Mr.  M'Calla  should  be 
allowed  to  proceed. 

The  President.  The  Moderators  have  decided, 
as  Mr.  Plummer  is  not  present,  that  Mr.  M^Calla 
shall  be  allowed  to  go  on  with  his  arguments.] 

My  opponent's  irreverent  and  Paganised  views 
and  expressions  are  of  such  a  character,  as  to  forbid 
my  fraternising  with  him  in  worship,  as  I  am  forbid- 
den to  hold  intercommunion  with  a  heathen  or  Ma- 
hometan. But  as  he  has  departed,  I  will  now  lead 
in  prayer,  with  the  consent  of  the  assembly. 

[Prayer  by  Mr.  M'Calla.] 

My  opponent  has  declared  to  this  audience,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  so  manifestly  absurd, 
that  Trinitarian  parents  never  speak  of  it  to  their 
children.  The  fact,  if  a  fact,  would  be  as  disgrace- 
ful as  the  intended  inference  is  false.  The  catechism 
of  our  church,  to  be  taught  and  explained  to  all  its 
children,  plainly  declares  the  doctrine ;  and  their 
initiation  into  the  church,  is  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.     When  pious  Jews  were  asked  by   their 


236  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

children,  the  meaning  of  their  ceremonies,  they  were 
not  ashamed  to  own  them;  and  Christian  parents, 
who  have  more  Ught,  should  have  more  zeal.  Such 
instruction  cannot  of  itself  renew  the  heart,  but 
parents  should  give  it,  and  hope  and  pray  that  God 
may  bless  it.  A  pious  mother,  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Alexander,  was  once  asked,  why  all  her  children 
were  so  soon  converted  ?  She  answered,  that  the 
power  was  from  God,  and  she  had  hardly  ever  asked 
herself  the  question,  whether  she  had  used  any  pe- 
culiar means  for  their  salvation.  But  the  question 
asked  by  another,  reminded  her,  that  in  their  infancy 
she  had  hardly  ever  given  one  the  breast  without 
lifting  up  her  heart  to  God  in  prayer  for  its  salvation. 
As  the  Scriptures  are  afterwards  given  to  them,  and 
called  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  ought  not  pa- 
rents to  be  equally  convinced  of  their  dependence  on 
Heaven,  and  equally  zealous  in  praying  for  a  blessing 
with  these  breasts  of  consolation  ? 

Allow  me  to  press  this  subject  a  moment,  with  a 
bearing  that  comes  more  home  to  our  own  present 
case.  Some  of  the  friends  of  the  truth  in  this 
assembly,  have  been  tempted  to  place  too  much  con- 
fidence in  the  use  of  means.  They  have  privately 
spoken  as  if  they  were  certain  that  my  adversary 
would  be  defeated  if  he  once  got  into  my  clutches. 
This  is  not  my  doctrine,  and  it  ought  not  to  be  yours. 
Was  it  God  or  Moses  that  defeated  Egypt  and  deli- 
vered Israel  ?  Paul  may  plant  and  ApoUos  water, 
but  it  is  God  that  giveth  the  increase;  and  Christians 
should  carefully  use  the  means  according  to  his  will, 
and  feel  their  utter  dependence  upon  his  blessing. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  237 

This  truth  I  have  endeavored  to  recognize  in  the 
present  controversy.  I  have  told  my  Maker  and 
Master  in  secret,  that  my  weakness  and  worthless- 
ness  were  manifest  and  undeniable.  I  have  besought 
him  to  interpose  in  his  own  way  for  the  salvation 
of  your  precious  souls.  And  in  the  contemplation 
of  this  glorious  subject,  the  mere  carnal  gratification 
of  a  personal  victory  over  an  individual  adversary, 
is  blotted  out. 

One  of  the  most  mournful  blasphemies,  exhibited  by 
him,  is  the  one  in  which  he  said  that  "if  Christ  was 
God,  then  the  devil  was  God  V'  This  was  said  in  a 
giggling  manner,  in  the  hearing  of  children.  It  was 
not  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  but  the  gall  and 
the  vinegar  of  hatred  to  Christ.  He  had  his  salvo, 
as  all  the  self-conceited  Unitarian  tribe  have,  for 
their  evil  words.  He  has  said  in  your  presence,  that 
the  devil  is  called  the  God  of  this  world,  from  which 
he  thinks  himself  justified  in  a  diabolical  opposition 
to  the  God  of  heaven.  Because  the  name  God  is 
given  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air,  and  to 
the  princes  and  potentates  of  the  human  race,  whe- 
ther good  or  bad,  he  seems  to  think  the  name  so 
utterly  desecrated,  that  it  cannot  mark  supreme  and 
eternal  divinity.  He  might  as  well  say,  that  because 
the  term  man  is  in  the  Hebrew  idiom  apphed  to  m- 
ferior,  irrational,  and  even  inanimate  creatures,  it 
cannot  therefore  denote  humanity.  We  shall,  how- 
ever, show,  with  the  help  of  God,  that  this  infidelity 
is  without  excuse.  Take,  for  instance,  Jude  24, 
25 — "  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  keep  you  from 
falling,  and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the  pre- 


238  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA^S 

sence  of  his  glory,  with  exceeding  joy,  to  the  only 
wise  God  our  Saviour,  be  glory,  and  majesty,  do- 
minion, and  power,  both  now  and  evermore.  Amen/i;^ 
We  admit  that  the  devil  is  the  god  of  this  world, 
and  the  persecuting  judges  are  sometimes  called  gods, 
but  theu  godships  are  qualified,  for  they  shall  die 
like  men,  and  go  to  their  own  place.  How  comes 
it,  therefore,  that  the  same  Bible  says  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  "only  wise  God,  our  Saviour?"  If 
ministers  are  told  to  be  wise  as  serpents,  must  not 
the  old  serpent  be  wise  ?  yet  here  is  the  only  wise 
God.  Moses  was  a  god  to  Aaron.  Was  not  Moses 
wise  ?  How  comes  it,  then,  that  that  prophet  of  whom 
he  was  a  type,  is  the  only  wise  God.  Admit  that  he  is 
the  only  true,  supreme  and  eternal  God,  and  that 
others  are  only  figurative  gods,  and  there  is  no  contra- 
diction. This  is  the  solution  which  gives  due  force 
to  every  scriptural  expression  upon  the  subject,  "  ut 
res  magis  valeat  quant  pereat — that  the  thing  may 
stand  rather  than  perish"  by  irreconcilable  incon- 
sistencies. This  is  the  way  to  reconcile  otherwise 
inconsistent  declarations  concerning  the  Sonship  of 
Christ.  He  is  said  to  be  God's  own  Son,  his  only 
begotten  Son ;  yet,  in  his  genealogy,  Luke  says  that 
Adam  is  the  Son  of  God. — And  Paul  says  we  are 
all  his  offspring.  Moses  says  that  the  antediluvian 
Saints  were  the  Sons  of  God,  and  the  angels  are 
called  the  Sons  of  God.  How  then  is  Christ  empha- 
tically God's  own  Son,  his  only  begotten  Son,  except 
upon  the  ground  given  by  David  and  Paul,  "  unto 
the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and 
ever?"     This  is  a  language  which  both  these  in- 


r/ 


r^ 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  239 

spired  penmen  deny  to  the  great  men  of  the  world 
and  to  the  loftiest  creatures  of  heaven.  Yet  this  does 
not  show  that  heaven  contains  two  Gods,  but  only  a 
plurality  of  persons  in  the  one  Divine  essence. 

When  Jude  calls  Christ  the  only  Divine  Potentate, 
he  does  not  mean  to  contradict  Paul  in  his  declara- 
tion that  the  Father  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate, 
but  to  assert  the  equality  of  the  one  person  with  the 
other,  iu  one  Divine  Essence.  Isaiah  (ch.  xliv.  5, 6.  xlv. 
20,  21,  22^)  says,  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  King 
of  Israel,  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  I 
am  the  first  and  I  am  the  last,  and  beside  me  there 
is  no  God."  Does  he  here  mean  to  deny  the  created 
godsliips  mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  does  he  believe 
that  the  King  of  Israel  and  his  Redeemer,  the  Lord  of 
Hosts,  are  two  Gods  ?  Candid  intelligence  will  own, 
that  he  distinguishes  this  divine  Redeemer  as  su- 
preme over  these  inferior  gods,  and  as  co-equal  with 
the  Father  and  his  Spirit  in  the  one  Godhead.  When 
the  same  prophet  says,  in  the  place  just  referred  to, 
"  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else,'^  does  he  mean 
to  deny  that  the  devil  is  the  God  of  this  world  ?  In- 
stead of  this,  he  means  to  assert,  that  the  speaker  is 
the  God  of  heaven,  an  equal  person  with  the  Father, 
in  one  essence.  In  the  same  place  just  referred  to, 
the  second  person  of  the  trinity  says,  "  There  is  no 
God  else  beside  me,  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour ;  there 
is  none  beside  me,"  which  contains  no  denial  of  the 
supreme  divinity  of  the  other  persons  of  the  adorable 
trinity,  nor  of  the  inferior  godship  of  angels  and  men, 
good  and  bad ;  but  it  certainly  declares  that  the  Son 
is  co-equal  and  co-essential  with  the  supreme  Father, 


240 

and  of  course  that  there  is  a  phirahty  of  persons 
in  the  one  divine  essence. 

David,  (Psahn  Ixxxiii.  18,)  says  of  the  Father, 
"  Thou  whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah  art  the  Most 
High  over  all  the  earth."  Here  are  two  expressions 
denoting  Supremacy.  He  who  is  Most  High  is  Su- 
preme, and  He  who  is  over  all  is  Supreme ;  and  as 
they  are  used  to  denote  the  Supremacy  of  the  Father, 
Unitarians  will  not  contradict  me.  But  a  good  rule 
works  both  ways.  If  our  Redeemer  be  Most  High, 
and  if  he  be  God  over  all,  then  his  Supremacy  also 
should  be  admitted ;  and  as  there  are  not  two  Gods, 
there  must  be  a  plurality  of  persons  in  one  Divine 
essence.  A  very  little  time  will  serve  to  show  you, 
that  these  expressions  are  used  to  denote  the  Supreme 
divinity  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
My  opponent's  bretliren,  Fleming  and  Kmkade, 
make  such  declarations  as  the  following,  viz  : 
"  When  the  prophets  foretold  of  Christ,  they  always 
mentioned  liim  as  a  being  uiferior  to  and  dependant 
on  God."  Paul,  in  1  Corinthians  x.  9,  says,  "Neither 
let  us  tempt  Christ  as  some  of  them  also  tempted." 
Will  David  answer  for  a  Prophet  ?  He  says  of  Clirist, 
(Psalm  Ixxviii.  56,)  "  They  tempted  and  provoked 
the  Most  High  God.  In  Luke  i.  76,  Zacharias  says 
to  his  new-born  son,  John  the  Baptist,  "  And  thou 
child  shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  Highest,  for 
thou  shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  prepare 
his  ways."  Paul  says,  (Romans  ix.  5,)  "  Of  whom 
as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all 
God  blessed  for  ever."  Here  we  have  Christ  de- 
clared to  be  the  Highest  Lord,  and  over  all  God,  as 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  241 

David  declared  his  Father  to  be  "  the  Most  High  over 
all/'  Yet  these  are  not  two  Gods,  nor  do  they  deny 
inferior  Godships,  but  only  declare  that  there  is  a 
plurality  of  equal  persons  in  the  one  Divine  essence. 
The  same  thing  which  is  here  declared,  is  asserted  in 
Luke  i.  35,  concerning  the  third  person  of  the  Tri- 
nity :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and 
the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee." 
Whether  the  title  here  be  miderstood  of  the  Father 
or  of  the  Spirit,  it  is  well  known  that  they  who,  like 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
sin  not  against  men  but  against  God.  My  supreme 
desire  is,  that  you  and  yours,  and  all  for  whom  we 
should  be  concerned,  may  not  sin  against  the  Father, 
the  Son,  or  the  Spirit ;  but  may  penitently,  believ- 
ingly,  and  practically,  receive  the  Holy  Trinity,  and 
find  a  hiding  place  in  your  covenant  God. 


21 


242 


MR.  PLUMMER. 

The  gentleman  commenced  by  saying,  "  When  I 
came  here  I  expected  that  the  rules  of  the  discussion 
would  have  been  arranged  by  the  parties  V    Yet  in 
the  evening  debate  upon  the  rules,  he  said  that  he 
not   only  "expected  a  long  tug,   but   that  we   to 
avoid  meeting  him,  would  not  agree  to  any  fair 
rules."   Now  the  truth  is,  the  greatest  difficulty  in  the 
way  was  his  conscience — not  only  with  us,  but  with 
the  Moderators  and  also  the  assembly.     Unlike  the 
apothecary  who  deals  in  scruples,   the   gentleman 
deals  largely  in  conscience  without   scruples.     He 
misnames  his  will,  craft  or  notions,  conscience ;  as 
he  does  a  "  certain  something"  in  his  creed,  which 
he  calls  "persons;"  but  says  "we  are  not  to  under- 
stand by  persons  what  is  usually  meant  when  ap- 
plied to  other  things  ;  but  distinctions  in  the  God- 
head that  may  be  called  persons."    What  is  the  true 
character  of  those  who  say  one  thing  and  mean  an- 
other ?     If  we  put  persons  for  distinctions,  and  dis- 
tinctions for  persons ;  is  it  not  as  Jesus  says — "putting 
light  for  darkness  and  darkness  for  Ught?"     Paul 
speaks  of  some  who  "  turned  aside  from  a  good  con- 
science, unto   vain    jangling,   understanding   not 
what  they  say,  nor  whereof  they  affirm."  1  Tim.  i. 
5 — 7.     Those  who  follow  such  leaders,  will,  with 
them,  "fall  into  the  ditch!" 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  243 

Again,  he  says,  "  The  bench  and  the  house  were 
so  kind  as  to  insert  a  clause  allowing  the  debate  to 
continue  until  the  parties  were  satisfied."  And  why- 
were  they  so  kind  ?  Because  they  saw  that  there 
would  be  no  discussion  without.  His  conscience 
said,  "  This  is  indispensable  to  my  engaging  in  the 
discussion."  Yea,  "  I  will  die  first."  AMiy  all  this 
manoeuvering  to  cover  his  retreat,  if  he  was  not  co?i' 
scions  oi  being  defeated?  He  is  so  very  fair  that 
he  must  have  not  only  the  last  speech  but  the  first, 
prefaced  with  an  address  of  three  and  a  half  hours, 
also  an  evening  preach  of  an  hour  and  a  half  dur- 
ing the  discussion,  and  then  through  fear  of  the  "  red 
hot  shot"  of  his  opponent's  last  thirty  minutes'  speech 
sinking  him,  he  must  have  two  hours  at  least  to  repair 
his  creed  and  to  endeavor  to  return  to  port,  although 
in  a  sinking  condition.  "  He  who  builds  with  hay 
wood  and  stubble,"  upon  the  foundation  of  men's 
inventions,  may  well  fear  "  red  hot  shot."  But  he 
who  is  m  the  tire-proof  of  truth,  and  hath  built  upon 
"Christ  the  foundation,  gold,  silver  and  precious 
stones,"  (1  Cor.  iii.  12 — 15,)  fears  not  the  red  hot 
shot  of  antichrist.  And,  saith  Paul,  "  He  shall  be 
able  to  quench  all  the  Jieri/  darts  of  the  wicked." 
Ephesians  vi.  16. 

The  very  conscientious  gentleman  says,  "If  he 
were  still  here,  I  should  be  pleased  to  continue  the 
argument  for  several  days."  But  did  he  not  say, 
"  if  my  opponent  shall  remain  this  afternoon  or  some 
days  longer,  I  shall  claim  my  right  of  speaking  two 
hours  after  he  has  done?"  Did  the  majority  of  the 
Moderators,  who  concurred  with  him  in  sentiment, 


244  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

think  it  was  his  right  7  No  !  Did  the  majority  of 
the  house  think  so  ?  No !  It  was  his  tender  con- 
science and  the  management  of  certain  individuals 
by  whom  he  at  last  obtained  the  insertion  of  the  in- 
dejinitt  clause  of  the  rules,  "  until  the  parties  are 
satisfied." 

But  the  gentleman  says,  "  My  opponent  was  guilty 
of  very  great  and  injurious  misrepresentations,  in 
some  of  which  he  even  pretended  to  read  very  exact 
notes,  pemied  from  my  lips."  And  he  adds,  "I 
have  shown  you  irreconcilable  discrepancies,  be- 
tween his  notes  and  my  words,  and  even  his  notes 
and  his  own  words,  and  between  one  note  and  an- 
other note  of  his  own."  These  statements  are  not 
true.  Why  did  he  not  make  them  m  my  presence  ? 
If  they  were  true  would  he  not  have  given  the  evi- 
dence ?  We  now  believe  the  story  that  he  told  about 
the  Christians  in  the  west,  and  the  old  boards,  a 
fabrication  of  his  own  to  excuse  himself  for  the  libel 
for  which  he  was  convicted  by  a  jury  of  his  country- 
men. He  showed  no  contradictions  in  our  notes 
during  the  discussion.  We  called  on  him  once  to 
correct  his  notes,  when  he  said  that  we  had  set 
twenty-five  passages  of  scripture  against  one.  W^e 
said,  that  Moses  had  used  the  singular  pronoun  in 
speaking  of  God,  a  hundred  times  to  one  of  the  plu- 
ral.— ^We  might  have  said  a  thousand  to  one. 

But  charging  us  with  being  guilty  of  discrepancies 
and  misrepresentations,  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from 
him.  Have  we  ever  challenged  him,  and  then 
denied  it?  Have  we  invited  him  into  a  Chris- 
tian pulpit,  and  denied  it  ?     Have  we  made  state- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  245 

ments  that  would  convict  us  of  Atheism,  and 
then  denied  the  statements  ?  Have  we  ever  spoken 
disrespectfully  of  Mechanics,  and  then  denied  what 
we  said  ?  No  !  Have  we  been  detected  in  quot- 
ing scraps,  and  detached  parts  of  Scripture  to  sup- 
port our  views,  when  the  whole  passage  or  its  con- 
nection would  show  an  entire  different  meaning? 
Facts  are  stubborn  things  !  But  again,  does  not  the 
gentleman  hold  that  "  there  are  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead,"  which  Godhead  was  united  to  a  very 
man  of  "two  persons,"  and  yet  that  these  five  per- 
sons are  but  "  One  person" — "  One  Christ  ?"  That 
this  very  God  and  very  man  were  "  inseparably^^ 
joined  in  "one  person,"  who  was  crucified,  and  yet 
that  only  the  fifth  person,  the  "  manhood  died  ?" 
Has  he  not  asserted  that  God  cannot  die,  that  Christ 
is  that  very  God,  "  That  in  his  soul  and  body  he 
bore  the  punishment  of  our  sins,  as  efficacious  to 
our  atonement  as  if  the  Deity  had  died  in  our 
place  ?"  And  yet,  "  that  the  blood  of  Christ  is  figu- 
ratively called  the  blood  of  God"  only!  Did  he 
not  say  in  his  first  speech  that  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand that  there  is  "a  plurality  of  beings  in  one 
person ;"  but  in  his  last  speech  that  there  are  "  two 
beings  in  one  person  .^"  He  says,  "  There  is  neither 
name,  act  nor  attribute  in  the  Godhead  that  is  not 
shared  in  common  by  all  the  persons  in  the  Trinity;" 
yet,  that,  "each  of  these  persons  possesses  some  pro- 
perties which  do  not  belong  to  the  others."  He 
says  that,  "Three  distinct  persons  in  one  divine 
essence  appears  to  me  incomprehensible;^^  and  yet 
that  it  can  be  understood,  and  that  he  understands 
21* 


246  PLUMMER  AND  M'CALLA's 

the  great  outlines  of  it.'^  He  says,  to  admit  that 
Christ  is  "  the  only  true,  Supreme  and  Eternal  God, 
is  the  way  to  reconcile  otherwise  inconsistent  decla- 
rations concerning  the  Sonship  of  Christ!"  Where 
are  those  "iVreco?zci7«^/e  inconsistent  declarations?" 
In  God's  words  ?  No  !  What !  the  "  loords  of  the 
Spirit'^  concerning  the  Sonship  of  Christ  ''incon- 
sistent?^^ And  he  has  a  ivay  to  reconcile  them !  He 
had  better  reconcile  the  folio v/ing  "  irreconcilable'^ 
statements  of  his  own.  "  Jehovah,  God  expressly 
declares,  is  a  name  that  he  icill  not  give  to  another^ 
although  it  is  given  to  Jesus  Christ."  Now,  if  the 
gentleman  believes  that  God  speaks  the  truths  what 
mw<y/ Ae  think  of  himself  ?  Agam,  "  Although  Mey 
(the  Son  and  the  Spirit)  are  different  from  Jehovah, 
they  are  not  another,  but  the  same  Divine  being." 
^'  Christ  himself  can  do  nothing,  yet  he  can  do  all 
things!"  He  is  of  "Eternal  generation,  the  true 
temple  of  God,  the  house  of  God,  and  God  himself!^' 
And  all  those,  a  thousand  and  one  palpable  contra- 
dictions, are  not  "discrepancies,"  because  Paul  said, 
"great  is  the  mystery  of  Godliness."  "You  blind 
guide  !  who  strains  at  a  gnat,  and  would  swallow 
A  CAMPBELL." 

But  the  gentleman  said,  "  I  must  refer  you  to  a 
false  imputation  of  a  doctrme  to  me  which  for  me  to 
believe  after  the  solemn  vows  I  have  made  to  the 
contrary,  would  make  me  worse  than  an  ordinary 
horse  thief"  If  a  fair  construction  of  the  gentle- 
man's own  words  and  the  words  of  his  creed,  will 
make  him  worse  than  an  ordinary  horse  thief,  we 
are  not  to  be  censured  for  that.     "  Out  of  thine  own 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.      247 

mouth  will  I  condemn  thee."  He  adds,  "  I  have 
with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath  adopted  a  creed  which 
denies  this  change  or  conversion  of  Deity  into  hu- 
manity. And  to  show  his  desire  to  wrong  me  in  this 
false  assertion,  he  has  quoted  that  creed  to  you." 
And  is  this  criminal,  or  unfair, — to  quote  from  his 
own  creed  to  show  his  absurdities  ?  If  so,  we  will 
offend  again.  The  Christ  of  his  creed  is  said  to  be 
composed  of  ^^  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  in- 
separably joined  together  in  one  person,  which  per- 
son is  very  God  and  very  man  yet  one  Christ."  But 
the  gentleman  has  said  that  it  is  not  the  Father  nor 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the  Son,  the  second  person 
alone,  that  took  the  manhood ;  that  "  Christ  the  Sa- 
viour is  the  second  person  of  the  Godhead  in  human 
nature,  and  not  the  Jii^st  nor  the  third.''^  Is  not  this 
contradicting  the  Scriptures  and  his  own  creed? 
Paul  says,  that  "in  Christ  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of 
the  Godhead  bodily.''^  (Col.  ii.  9.)  And  Jesus  says, 
"  The  Father  dwelleth  iii  me.  He  doeth  the  works." 
(John  xiv,  10.)  And  his  creed  says  that  it  was  the 
"  Godhead  and  manhood,  and  in  this  Godliead 
there  be  three  persons  of  one  substance,  power,  and 
eternity :  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost !"  He  is  at  odds  with  the  New  School ; 
and  the  Old  School  may  yet  reprove  him  for  un- 
soundness in  the  faith.  This  ''very  and  Eternal 
God  of  three  persons,  took  man^s  nature,  and  all 
the  essential  properties  and  common  infirmities 
thereof,  joined  together  in  one  person,  which  person 
is  Christ,  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  womb  of  the^ Virgin  Mary  ;"  and  yet  NO  "com- 


248  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

position,  change  nor  conversion  ?'* — [See  Walker's 
definition.]  Yea  more,  This  One  person.  One  Christ 
dies,  but  the  divinity  does  not  suffer ;  inseparably 
joined  together  in  One  person,  One  God  who  actually- 
died,  yet  he  did  not  die,  for  the  human  nature  only- 
died,  yet  "  He  gave  his  SOUL  an  offering  for  sin." 
And  he  admires  the  "  Sweet  Poet"  that  says 

"  God  the  mighty  Maker  died 
For  man  the  creature's  sin." 

All  these  monstrous  absurdities,  the  gentleman 
adopted  with  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  And  hence 
we  should  believe  his  creed,  and  not  presume  to 
question  his  sincerity  ?  If  once  a  lawyer,  he  must 
be  a  quack  in  law  as  well  as  in  Divinity — for  in  law 
a  witness  who  absolutely  contradicts  himself  in  his 
testimony  is  not  believed  although  upon  his  oath. 
And  why  should  he  who  states  the  most  palpable 
contradictions  in  Divine  matters  be  credited  upon  his 
oath  ?  Have  we  misrepresented  the  gentleman's  con- 
tradictions, or  exaggerated  the  gross  absurdities  of 
his  creed  ?  No  !  No  !  We  have  spared  it  and  him. 

Again.  He  says,  "  such  reporters  as  he  could  if 
believed  swear  me  under  the  gallows  at  any  mo- 
ment." Here  the  gentleman  was  also  unhappy  in 
his  allusions.  When  did  a  Christian  preacher  ever 
persecute  a  Presbyterian,  or  by  his  oath  cause  im- 
prisonment or  death  to  any  one  ?  The  Presbyterians 
have  persecuted  the  Christians  time  and  again.  We 
will  ask  the  learned  gentleman  if  Calvin,  the  no- 
torious persecutor,  is  not  his  spiritual  ancestor,  and 
favorite  oracle  of  orthodoxy  ?  One  of  the  memorable 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRIXITY.  249 

victims  of  his  y^eligious  intolerance  was  Michael 
Servetus,  a  learned  Spaniard,  an  eminent  physician, 
and  a  pious   Christian,     He  held  a  confidential, 
religious  <^ correspondence   with   Calvin: — Of  this 
confidence  Calvin  subsequently  made  a  base  use.'' 
"It  is  well  known,  that  Michael  Servetus,  on  his 
passage  through  Geneva,  in  1553,  was  arrested,  and, 
on    Calvin's  accusation,    was   BURNT   ALIVE, 
because  he  had  attacked  the  mystery  of  the  Tri- 
nity in  a  book  which  was   neither  icritten,  nor 
printed  at  Geneva.     Numerous  other  similar  ex- 
amples might  be  adduced,  to  prove  the  blind  and 
fanatical  zeal  which  he  had  infused  into   the  ma- 
gistracy of  Geneva.'^    And  was  it  not  the  orthodox 
Trinitarians  who  cruelly  persecuted,  whipt,  banished, 
imprisoned  and  hung  unoffending  men  and  icomen 
of  the  society  of  Friends  in  New  England?  We  will 
ask  our  very  conscientious  opponent,  who  has  exhi- 
bited the  Christian  spirit  in  this  dispute  ?    Can  he 
name  a  Presbyterian  congregation  that  would  sit 
and  hear  a  Christian  minister  without  provocation 
abuse  and  calumniate  them  (in  their  own  house)  in 
a  disrespectful  manner,  denouncing  their  faith  as  the 
"  God  denying  heresy,"  as  the  Christians  in  Ridley 
did  him  without  interruption  ?    Would  any  of  the 
sects  that  backed  him  in  the  effort  to  put  us  down 
suffer  it  without  putting  him  down  ?    No  !   Yet  we 
patiently  heard  him  pour  out  "the  vials  of  his  wrath 
upon  us"  until  he  was  tired. 

But  again,  contradicting  the  51st  page  of  his  creed, 
the  gentleman  said — "  We  believe  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  is  a  real  created  humanity — that  the  person 


250  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

of  Christ  is  not  a  tertiuTn  quid,  as  the  Chemists  say, 
formed  by  the  composition  of  two  other  and  different 
ingredients.'^  Not  different  ingredients,  when  one 
part  is  a  real  created  humanity,  and  the  other  part 
the  second  person  in  the  Trinity? — No,  no,  not  a 
tertium  quid!!  What  then?  "  This  person  of  Christ 
has  in  close,  intimate,  mysterious  union,  two  distinct 
natures,  as  distinct  in  their  union  as  before  the  Sa- 
viour's birth !"  Now,  these  two  distinct  natures, 
are  two  distmct  persons.  This  he  will  deny,  for  his 
creed  says  they  are  one  person,  one  Christ,  [page  51], 
But  his  creed  also  says  [page  ^b\  that  they  are  two 
persons :  *'  That  which  is  proper  to  one  nature,  is 
sometimes,  in  scripture,  attributed  to  the  person  de- 
nominated by  the  other  natureP  As  his  creed  says 
his  Christ  is  but  one  person,  and  yet  that  he  is  two, 
which  will  he  believe  ?  Oh  !  certainly,  he  will  say 
both  ! — for  he  has  adopted  it  with  the  solemnity  of 
an  oath ! !  There  is  nothing  said  in  the  Scriptures  of 
two  natures  in  Christ,  nor  of  his  being  two  persons — 
hence  the  system  is  false.  We  read  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  and  repeatedly  "the  one  Lord  Jesus"  "the 
one  mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus."  Not  two  beings  ;  but  a  '^  mediator  between 
TWO,"  But  he  says — •«  Christ  has  in  close,  intimate, 
mysterious  union,  two  distinct  natures."  All  this 
plain  contradiction  of  the  word  of  God,  and  of  com- 
mon sense,  by  bis  creed  is  passed  over  by  saying  it 
is  "mysterious" — And  this  subterfuge  is  justified 
because  Paul  said,  "  Great  is  the  mystery  of  God- 
liness." If  it  is  a  mystery,  what  that  mystery  is, 
we  can  neither  believe  nor  teach  until  it  is  revealed. 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  251 

The  mystery  of  which  the  apostle  spoke  is  revealed, 
hence  is  not  now  a  mystery ;  but  is  "  according  to 
the  commandment  of  the  everlasting  God  made 
known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith/' 
Rom.  xvi.  2Q,  Yet  this  text  is  the  resort  of  all 
sectarians  to  cover  their  absurd  doctrines.  Show  a 
Reprobationer  the  impropriety  of  charging  God  with 
making  a  certain  part  of  mankind  on  purpose  for 
damnation,  then  of  calling  on  them  to  repent,  and 
believe  that  they  might  be  saved,  the  answer  is 
"  great  is  the  mystery  of  Godliness."  "And  so  they 
wrap  it  up."  Micah  vii.  3. — -As  the  gentleman  has 
again  resorted  to  this  '^Mysterious  union,"  and 
repeatedly  made  use  of  the  words  "  Great  is  the 
mystery  of  Godliness,"  as  a  warrant  for  his  "  Mys- 
teries of  iniquity,"  we  will  here  notice  the  passage. 
To  understand  the  apostle  we  must  compare  his 
writings.  The  passage  occurs  1  Tim.  iii.  1 6.  "  And 
without  controversy  great  is  the  mystery  of  God- 
liness ;  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the 
spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles, 
believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory." 
There  is  no  mention  of  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity 
here,  nor  of  the  mystery  of  the  Godhead,  and  man- 
hood, being  joined  together  in  one  person,  nor  of 
two  distinct  natures,  nor  persons  in  one  being  who 
was  truly  crucified,  dead  and  buried  ;  yet  so  myste- 
riously that  nothing  suffered  but  the  manhood. 

In  the  same  chapter,  in  verses  14  and  15,  the 
apostle  saith,  "  These  things  write  I  unto  thee,  that 
thou  mayest  know  how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thy- 
self in  the  house  of  God."     And  in  verse  9th  tells 


252  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

him  what  the  deacons  must  be ;  "  Holdmg  the  mi/s- 
tery  of  the  faith  in  a  pm'e  conscience."  And 
writing  to  the  Ephesians  on  the  same  subject  saith, 
"Ye  have  heard  of  the  dispensation  of  the  grace 
of  God,  which  is  given  me  to  you  ward :  how  that 
by  revelation  he  made  known  unto  me  the  mystery  ; 
as  I  wrote  before  in  a  few  words;  (see  ch.  1.  9.) 
whereby  when  ye  read,  ye  may  understand  my 
knowledge  in  the  m^ystery  of  Christ,  which  in 
other  ages  was  not  made  knoivn  unto  the  sons  of 
men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  unto  his  holy  apostles 
and  prophets  by  the  spirit ;  that  the  Gentiles 
should  be  fellow  heii^s,  and  of  the  same  body,  and 
partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  gospel. 
Unto  me,  who  am  less  than  the  least  of  all  saints, 
is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should  preach  among  the 
Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ;  and  to 
inake  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellowship  of  the 
mystery,  which  from  the  begimiing  of  the  world 
hath  been  hid  in  God."  Eph.  iii.  2 — 9. 

Notice  1st  the  apostle  in  verse  6,  tells  what  this 
mystery  is;  "That  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow 
heirs,  and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his 
promise  in  Christ  by  the  gospel."  2dly.  In  verse 
3,  and  5,  he  says  the  mystery  is  revealed :  "  How 
that  by  revelation  he  made  known  unto  me  the 
mystery  which  in  other  ages  was  not  made  known 
unto  the  sons  of  men,  as  it  is  now  revealed  unto 
his  holy  apostles  and  j^'^'ophets  by  the  spirit.^^ 
3dly.  In  verses  4,  8,  and  9,  he  mentions  his  object 
in,  and  authority  for  writing ;  "  Whereby,  when  ye 
read,  ye  may  understand  my  knowledge  in  the  mys- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  253 

tery  of  Christ ^  For  *^unto  me  who  am  less  than 
the  least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  / 
should  preach  among  the  Gentiles  the  unsearch- 
able riches  of  Christ;  and  to  make  all  men  see 
what  is  the  fellowship  of  the  mystery.'*''  There- 
fore he  adds,  ch.  vi.  19.  Pray  for  me,  "  That  utter- 
ance may  be  given  unto  me,  that  I  may  open  my 
mouth  boldly,  to  make  known  the  mystery  of  the 
gospel.^' 

His  words  to  the  Romans  are  also  to  this  point, 
ch.  xi.  25.  "  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant  of  this  mystery,  lest  ye  should 
be  wise  in  your  own  conceits.'^  Again,  ch.  xvi. 
25,  26.  ^«  Now,  to  him  that  is  of  power  to  establish 
you  according  to  my  gospel,  and  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  Cln-ist,  according  to  the  revelation  of  the  mys- 
tery, which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world  began, 
but  now  is  made  manifest,  and  by  the  scriptures  of 
the  prophets,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all  nations  for  the 
obedience  of  faith."  Moreover,  see  his  words  to  the 
Colossians.  Ch.  i.  25,  26,  27.  "Whereof  I  am  made 
a  minister  according  to  the  dispensation  of  God, 
which  is  given  to  me  for  you,  to  fulfil  the  word  of 
God ;  even  the  mystery  which  hath  been  hid  from 
ages  and  from  generations,  but  now  is  made  mani- 
fest to  his  saints:  to  whom  God  would  make 
known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this  mystery 
among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the  hope 
of  glory.''  He  adds,  ch.  iv.  3, 4.  "  Praying  also  for 
us,  that  God  would  open  unto  us  a  door  of  utterance, 
to  speak  the  mystenj  of  Christ,  for  which  I  am  also 

22 


254 

in  bonds :  that  I  may  make  it  manifest  as  I  ought  to 
speak.'- 

In  1  Cor.  ii.  7,  the  apostle  calls  this  mystery  the 
wisdom  of  God ;  "  But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of  God 
in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden  wisdom,  which  God 
ordained  before  the  world  unto  our  glory."  That 
is,  the  apostles  were  chosen  by  the  will  of  God  in 
Christ  Jesus,  to  make  it  known  to  all  nations  for  the 
obedience  of  faith.  What  the  apostle  in  writing  to 
the  Corinthians,  calls  "The  wisdom  of  God  in  a 
mystery,  even  the  hidden  msdom  ;'*  he  in  Eph.  i.  9, 
calls  "  The  mystery  of  his  will ;"  and  in  ch.  iii.  4. 
"The  mystery  of  Christ;''  and  ch.  vi.  19.  "The 
mystery  of  the  gospel;''  and  to  the  Col.  i.  25,  26. 
"The  dispensation  of  God,  to  fulfil  the  words  of 
God  even  the  mystery ;"  and  in  iv.  3,  "  The  mys- 
tery of  Christ;"  and  in  1  Tim.  iii.  9,  "The  mystery 
of  the  faith;"  and  in  verse  16,  "The  mystery  of 
Godliness."  Observe,  The  mystery,  not  mysteries; 
for  in  all  these  places  he  is  speaking  of  one  and  the 
same  thing;  "Even  the  mystery  which  hath  been 
hid  from  ages  and  from  generations,  but  now  is 
made  manifest  to  his  saints :  to  whom  God  would 
make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glory  of  this 
mystery  among  the  Gentiles ;  which  is  Christ  in  you 
the  hope  of  Glory."  Which  Peter  saith,  "  The 
prophets  have  inquired  and  searched  dihgently, 
who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should  come  unto 
you.  Unto  whom  it  was  revealed,  that  not  unto 
themselves,  but  unto  us,  they  did  minister  the  things 
which  are  now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have 
preached  the  gospel  unto  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  255 

sent  down  from  heaven."     1  Pet.  i.  10,  12.     Of 

these  prophets  Paul  saith,  "  These  all  died  in  faith, 
not  having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen 
them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them,  and  em- 
braced them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers 
and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.''  Heb.  xi.  13.  "And 
these  ail,  having  obtained  a  good  report  through 
faith,  received  not  the  promise ;  God  having  pro- 
vided some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us 
should  not  be  made  perfect.''  Ver.  39,  40.  The 
apostles  lived  to  see  the  actual  fulfilment  of  what 
the  prophets  saw  by  faith,  and  spoke  of;  hence  they 
could  afiirm  them  to  be  true  or  perfect  prophets. 
That  the  things  which  were  hid  from  the  prophets, 
VTQxe  revealed  \Miio  the  apostles,  is  evident  from  the 
following  words  of  Christ ;  '<•  I  thank  thee,  0  Father, 
Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  thou  hast  hid  these 
things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  (Not  earthly, 
learned,  covetous  men,  but  prophets  and  righteous 
men  of  old.  See  Matt.  xiii.  17.)  and  hast  revealed 
them  unto  babes:  even  so,  Father;  for  so  it  seemed 
good  in  thy  sight."  Luke  x.  21.  In  the  23d  and  24th 
verses,  these  babes  are  called  disciples ;  and  these 
wise  and  prudent,  called  prophets  and  Kings,  "  And 
he  turned  him  unto  his  disciples,  and  said  privately, 
blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the  things  that  ye  see  : 
for  I  tell  you,  that  many  prophets  and  kings  have 
desired  to  see  those  things  which  ye  see,  and  have 
not  seen  them ;  and  to  hear  those  things  which  ye 
hear  and  have  not  heard  them."  Therefore  Christ 
said  to  them,  "  unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the  mys- 
tery of  the  kingdom  of  God."    Mark  iv.  11.    Hence 


256 

saith  Paiil,  "  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as,  of  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of 
God/'  1  Cor.  iv  1.  Paul  was  the  noted  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  remarkably  clear  upon  this  mystery : 
Peter  had  doubts  till  the  great  sheet  knit  at  the  four 
corners  was  let  down  to  him ;  "  Then  Peter  opened 
his  mouth  and  said,  of  a  truth,  I  perceive  that  God  is 
no  respecter  of  persons :  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted 
with  him."     Acts  x.  11,  34,  35. 

Therefore  by  comparing  the  apostle's  writings,  and 
also  the  other  scriptures,  it  is  abundantly  evident 
that  this  mystery  is  not  an  unknown,  incomprehensi- 
ble certain  something  which  can  neither  be  described 
nor  conceived.  But  that  which  hath  from  ages  and 
generations,  been  hid  in  God,  until  the  fulness  of 
time  which  he  had  purposed  in  himself;  and  they 
do  harmoniously  declare,  that  in  the  days  of  Christ, 
it  was  revealed  unto  the  apostles,  and  made  mani- 
fest unto  the  saints,  and  by  the  commandment  of 
the  everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all  nations 
for  the  obedience  of  faith. 

"  That  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow-heirs,  and  of 
the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise  in 
Christ  by  the  gospel ;"  is  what  was  a  mystery,  but  is 
noiv  a  revelation.  He  calls  it  both  a  mystery,  and  a 
revelation,  because  as  he  saith,  it  is  that  ^^  which  was 
kept  secret  since  the  world  began,  but  now  is  made 
manifest  ;^^  '^  YaY en  X\\q  mystery  which  hath  been  hid 
from  ages  and  from  generations,  but  now  is  made 
manifest  to  his  samts" — For  "  we  speak  the  wisdom 
of  God  in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden  wisdom  which 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  257 

God  ordained  before  the  world  unto  our  glory." 
This  is  what  he  calls,  "  The  dispensation  of  the 
grace  of  God,  which  is  given  me  to  you  ward,"  for 
"  by  revelation  he  made  known  unto  me  the  mys- 
terif^ — "  Whereof  I  am  made  a  minister,  according 
to  the  dispensation  of  God  which  is  given  to  me  for 
you."  Therefore  the  gospel  is  not  a  mystery,  but 
a  revelation ;  and  this  revelation  he  twice  calls  "  The 
dispensation  of  the  grace  of  God."  Hence,  as  the 
revelation  of  this  mystery,  or  dispensation,  was  put 
to  the  trust,  or  ordained  to  the  glory  of  the  apostles, 
as  stewards  of  this  manifold  grace  of  God,  and  as 
Paul  had  put  Timothy,  his  own  son  in  the  faith,  in 
trust  with  the  same  by  the  laying  on  of  his  hands; 
he  could  with  great  propriety  send  him  this  solemn, 
interesting  letter,  being  at  a  distance  from  him,  and 
as  he  saith,  "  If  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  mayest  know 
how  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself  in  the  house 
of  God,"  for  without  controversy  [beyond  dispute, 
or  confessedly']  great  [mighty  or  important,']  is  the 
mystery  [dispensation  or  treasure,]  of  Godliness 
which  is  committed  unto  thee,  as  a  teacher  and  ex- 
ample of  the  flock  and  church  of  the  living  God. 
Therefore  it  is  manifest,  that  these  words  are  nothing 
to  his  purpose.  And  I  cannot  believe  that  any 
honest,  inquiring  mind,  after  carefully  comparing 
these  scriptures,  can  think  that  our  apostle  could 
have  in  view  when  he  wrote  them,  a  doctrine  like 
the  Trinitarian  Hypothesis. 

But  the  other  part  of  this  text,  "  God  was  mani- 
fest in  the  fiesh,^'  has  been  equally  abused.  It  does 
not  say,  God  was  manifest  the  flesh.     Nor  that  the 

22* 


258 

<^  Very  and  eternal  God,  took  man's  nature  in  the 
womb  of  the  blessed  Virgin. '^  But  God  was  mani- 
fest IN  the  Jlesh.  Then  he  was  not  the  flesh, 
[person  or  Christ]  that  he  was  manifest  in.  The 
apostle  speaks  of  the  same  thing,  in  2  Tim.  i.  9, 
10,  11. 

"  Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  an  holy- 
calling,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according 
to  his  own  purpose  and  grace  which  was  given 
us  [apostles  and  elders]  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began,  but  is  now  made  manifest  by  the  ap- 
pearing of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  who  hath  abo- 
lished death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  immortality 
to  Ught  through  the  gospel :  Whereunto  I  am  ap- 
pointed a  preacher,  and  an  apostle,  and  a  teacher  of 
the  Gentiles."  Here  the  same  revelation  and  dis- 
pensation to  the  Gentiles,  given  to  the  apostles,  is 
brought  into  view ;  and  what  he  in  his  first  letter 
calls,  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  ;^^  he  in  the 
second  says,  "  Is  now  made  manifest  by  the  appear- 
ing of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, ^^  Speaking  of 
the  same  thing,  John  saith,  "  For  the  life  was  mani- 
fested, and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and 
show  unto  you  that  eternal  life  which  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us.^'  1  John  i.  2. 
Surely  it  was  not  the  Father  it  was  with.  In  verse 
1.  he  calls  it  "The  word  of  life."  And  in  his  record 
of  the  gospel  this  same  word  is  mentioned  :  "  In  the 
beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with 
God,  and  the  word  was  God.  The  same  was  in  the 
beginning  with  God."  ch.  i.  2.  Notice,  the  word 
is  twice  said  to  be  ivith  God ;  then  to  say  it  is  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  259 

God  it  is  said  to  be  ivith,  would  be  contradicting 
both  language  and  scripture. 

The  icord  in  Greek,  is  Logos,  (/.  e.  speech  or  wis- 
dotn,)  and  when  God  speaks,  it  is  the  Logos,  or 
ivord  of  God ;  and  when  man  speaks,  it  is  the  Logos, 
or  word  of  man. 

I  will  here  copy  these  verses  as  Gilbert  Wakefield 
in  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament  has  ren- 
dered them  with  the  note  thereon.  John  i.  verse  1. 
"In  the  beginning  was  wisdom,  and  wisdom  was 
with  God,  and  wisdom  was  God.  2d.  The  same 
was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  3d.  All  things 
were  made  by  it ;  and  without  it  was  nothing  made. 
4th.  What  was  made  had  life  in  it ;  and  this  life  was 
the  light  of  men.  5th.  And  this  light  shineth  in 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  hindered  it  not.  14th. 
And  this  wisdom  became  flesh,  and  dwelt  among 
us,  full  of  favor  and  truth :  and  we  saw  his  bright- 
ness, a  brightness  from  the  Father,  like  the  bright- 
ness of  an  only  son.  16th.  And  of  that  fulness  we 
all  received,  and  more  abundant  favor.  17th.  For 
the  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but  this  favor  and  this 
truth  took  place  through  Jesus  Christ.  ISth.  No 
one  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  :  that  only  Son,  who 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  hath  toM  us  of  him." 

The  note.  Logos,  wisdom  or  reason.  <•  INIy  au- 
thority for  this  translation  is  Solomon,)  Prov.  viii.  1. 
22 — 32.)  whom  I  think  no  man  can  possibly  deny  to 
be  speaking  of  the  very  same  thing  as  our  evange- 
list. That  by  the  Logos  of  John  is  meant  the  tcord 
of  God  so  frequent  in  the  Chaldee  Targums,  and 
the  mens,ratio  et  Sapientia — the  mind,  reason  and 


260  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

wisdom — of  the  Greek  and  Roman  philosophers 'S.xA 
Poets,  and  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  is  a  point  which 
seems  to  myself  at  least,  very  clearly  proved  in  page 
102,  and  the  following  pages  of  my  inquiry  into  the 
opinions  of  the  Christian  Writers.  In  further  confir- 
mation, however,  of  so  important  a  variation  from  the 
common  version,  and  which  is  hable  to  so  much  mis- 
construction and  censure,  I  shall  subjoin  some  further 
passages  from  different  authors  in  this  place,  also  let 
the  reader  consult  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  on  Gen. 
viii.  21.  Jerusalem  Tar  gums  on  Gen.  xxii.  4. 
That  of  Jonathan  on  Jeremiah,  xxx.  20.  And  the 
Targums  on  Lev.  xxh.  46.  Amos  vi.  8.  and  com- 
pare this  last  with  Heb.  vi.  13.  Now  will  any 
man  assert,  that  these  writers  regarded  the  luord  of 
God  as  a  distinct  being  from  God  himself?  I  sup- 
pose not.  The  Gi^eeks  use  the  term  Logos  more 
aptly,  than  we  can  use  the  term  word  or  discourse  ; 
because  their  Logos  signifies  both  discou?'se  and 
reason;  since  it  is  both  the  voice  and  wisdom  of 
God,^^  Wakefield  says,  "  I  feel  no  difficulty  in  as- 
serting, in  the  most  explicit  and  unqualified  lan- 
guage, that  no  man,  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  the  ancients  who  came  to  the  reading  of  John's 
gospel,  would  ever  have  fomid  Arian  or  Trinita- 
rian doctrines  there  if  he  had  not  come,  prepared 
with  his  strange  ideas,  to  these  scriptures.  Such 
interpretation  equally  violates  all  sober  philology 
and  the  uniform  usage  of  other  writers.  But  no- 
thing better  is  to  be  expected,  while  the  original 
scriptures  are  so  little  read,  and  their  phraseology 
considered  through  the  medium  of  translators  only." 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY       261 

Note  on  verse  14th.  This  wisdom  became  flesh 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  who  was  an  image  of 
his  Father,  or  of  divine  ivisdom.  See  Luke  ii.  40 — 
52.  compare  xi.  49.  of  Luke  with  Matt,  xxiii.  34. 
See  also  1  Cor.  i.  24.  "  But  unto  them  which  are 
called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of 
God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God." 

In  the  heginning  was  the  Logos,  speech,  or  wis- 
dom. As  God  had  no  beginning,  we  may  consider 
this  beginnmg  to  be  the  beginning  of  creation.  God 
had  a  design  from  the  beginning  in  making  all 
things ;  hence  Paul  speaks  of  "  His  good  pleasure 
which  he  hath  purposed  in  himself.^'  Eph.  i.  9. 
Again,  according  to  the  purpose  of  him.  ivho  icork- 
eth  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  wilL^' 
(verse  11.)  The  scriptures  are  a  record  of  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  as  revealed  to  men ;  and  it  is  evi- 
dent from  them  that  the  counsel  and  will  of  God 
which  from  the  beginning  he  had  purposed  in  him- 
self," was,  that  in  the  fulness  of  time  he  would  have 
a  Son,  and  that  he  should  be  "  Heir  of  all  things.^' 
Heb.  i.  2.  Hence  Solomon,  speaking  of  him  under 
the  character  of  ivisdom  saith,  "  The  Lord  possessed 
m.e  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before  his  works 
of  old."  Not  another  jyer^ori,  nor  distinct  being  from 
God  himself  then  existing.  But  "  I  was  set  up  from 
everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  earth 
was.'*  Prov.  viii.  22,  23.  God  spake  of  this  cha- 
racter "set  up"  in  his  mind  in  early  ages,  saying, 
"  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman, 
and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed:  it  [Heb.  he'] 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise   his 


262  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA'S 

heel."  Gen.  iii.  15.  Of  this  promised  seed  Paul 
saith,  "When  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come, 
God  sent  forth  his  Son,  'made  of  a  wonian.^^  Gal.  iv. 
4.  "  His  So7i/'  not  "  Manhoodj'^wox  a  mask  for  his 
Son  to  dwell  in.  "  Made  of  a  woman  ;"  and  to  say- 
he  was  made  before,  would  be  contradicting  the 
scriptures  and  Gabriel  who  said  to  Mary,  "That 
holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be 
called  the  Son  of  GodP  Luke  i.  35.  Israel  in  his 
last  words  spake  of  this  very  period,  "  The  sceptre 
shall  not  depart  from  Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from 
between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come  ;  and  unto  him, 
shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be."  Gen.  xlix. 
10.  The  fulfilment  of  which  Christ  spake,  Mark  i. 
15.  "  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand."  Then  the  sceptre  departed  from  Judah, 
and  the  first  dispensation  was  abolished,  having 
stood  its  appointed  time  as  a  figure  of  the  kingdom 
Christ  was  to  order  and  establish,  to  whom  the 
gathering  of  the  people  should  be ;  of  which  Paul 
saith,  "  Having  made  known  to  us  the  mystery  of 
his  will  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  which  he 
hath  purposed  in  himself:  that,  in  the  dispensation 
of  the  fulness  of  times  he  might  gather  together  in 
one  all  things  m  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven, 
and  which  are  on  earth,  even  in  him."  Eph.  i.  9, 10. 
"  And  he  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  church :  who 
is  the  beginning,  the  first-born  from  the  dead ;  that 
in  all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence."  Col. 
i.  18.  Hence  John  calls  him,  "The  beginning  oi 
the  creation  of  God."  Rev.  iii.  14.  And  in  Ch.  i.  1 1. 
Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last.     Alpha, 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.      263 

the  first  letter  in  the  Greek  alphabet.  "It  is  particu- 
larly used  among  ancient  writers  to  denote  the  chief 
or  first  man  of  his  class  or  rank.  In  this  sense  the 
word  stands  contradistinguished  from  Beta,  which 
denotes  the  second  person — Plato  was  called  the 
Alpha  of  the  wits ;  Erastosthenes,  keeper  of  the 
Alexandrian  library,  whom  some  called  a  second 
Plato,  is  frequently  named  Beta.  Alpha  is  also 
used  to  denote  the  beginning  of  any  thing.  In 
which  sense  it  stands  opposed  to  Omega,  which 
denotes  the  end.  These  two  letters  were  made  the 
symbol  of  Christianity ;  and  accordingly  were  en- 
graved on  the  tombs  of  the  ancient  christians,  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  tombs  of  the  idolaters." 

He  was  the  first  in  the  mind  of  God,  "  Set  up^^ 
from  the  beginning;  also  the  first  in  authority, 
«  The  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things  he 
might  have  the  pre-eminence.^^  Col.  i.  18.  Hence 
he  is  called  Alpha,  the  beginning  or  the  first.  He 
is  also  the  last  king  and  lawgiver,  for  he  abideth 
for  ever;  David,  Solomon,  and  other  kings  and 
rulers,  were  figures  of  or  pointing  to  him  who  is  now 
seated  on  the  throne  of  David  and  Israel  to  order 
and  establish  it  for  ever  and  ever.  No  one  is  to 
succeed  him,  he  is  both  a  king  and  priest  ordained 
of  God  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life.  He  is 
also  "The  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness," 
(Rom.  X.  4.)  and  "  The  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faith,"  (Heb.  xii.  2.)  And  there  was  given  him 
dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  peo- 
ple, nations,  and  languages,  should  serve  him :  his 
dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion   which  shall 


264  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall 
not  be  destroyed.  Hitherto  is  the  end  of  the  mat- 
ter." Dan.  vii.  14,  28.  And  saith  the  apostle/' 
*'  Then  cometh  the  end^  when  he  shall  have  deliv- 
ered up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  autho- 
rity and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath  put 
all  enemies  under  his  feet.  For  he  hath  put  all  things 
under  his  feet.  But  when  he  saith,  all  things  are  put 
under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he  is  excepted  which 
did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when  all  things 
shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also 
himself  be  subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under 
him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all.  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  25, 
27,  28.  Therefore  he  is  called  Omega,  the  end  or 
last. 

But  it  is  said,  "  The  word  was  ivith  God.''^  Here 
I  think  our  apostle  had  in  his  eye  the  words  of  Solo- 
mon, "  Wlien  he  appointed  the  foundations  of  the 
earth ;  then  I  was  by  him,  as  one  brought  up  with 
him;  and  was  daily  his  delight,  rejoicing  before 
him."  He  was  present  in  the  eternal  mind,  what 
he  was  actually  in  the  fulness  of  time ;  for  "  God 
calleth  those  things  which  be  not  as  though  they 
were ;"  Rom  iv.  17.  as  in  Rev.  xiii.  8.  Christ  is 
called,  "  The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world ;"  but  he  was  not  actually  slain  till  he  was 
crucified  on  the  cross.  So  says  Peter.  1  Epis.  i.  20. 
As  of  a  Lamb  "  who  verily  was  fore-ordained  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  manifest 
in  these  last  times  for  you.^^  So  also  this  same 
word  was  in  the  beginning  with  God,  set  up  from 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  265 

everlasting,  and  daily  his  delight,  what  he  was  act- 
ually when  the  voice  came  from  heaven  saying, 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased.^'  Matt.  iii.  17.  Hence,  in  the  beginning 
was  the  word,  and  the  word  was  with  God,  and  the 
word  was  God.  Here  it  is  said,  the  Word  was  God. 
I  have  noticed,  that  it  was  with  God ;  consequently 
not  the  God  it  was  with. 

That  he  is  called  God  in  the  scriptures  is  true. 
And  that  he  has  a  God  and  Father,  is  equally  true 
and  plain  from  the  scriptures.  And  he  that  denies 
the  latter,  must  of  necessity  the  former.  Before  his 
death  he  said,  "  My  soul  is  exceedingly  sorrowful, 
even  unto  death,"  and  prayed  saying,  "  0  my  Fa- 
ther, if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me :" 
Matt.  xxvi.  38,  39.  And  at  his  crucifixion  said,  ^'Eloi, 
Eloi,  lama  sabacthani?  which  is,  being  interpreted. 
My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?" 

"  In  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and  the  word  was 
with  God,  and  the  word  was  God."  At  first  sight,  you 
might  think  the  word  meant  the  son.  But  you  will  be 
convmced  that  this  is  impossible,  if  you  will  put  son 
in  the  place  of  word,  and  Father,  or  Father  and  holy 
spirit,  in  the  room  of  God.  In  the  first  instance,  it 
will  read — In  the  beginning  was  the  son,  and  the  so?i 
was  with  the  Father,  and  the  soii  was  the  Father. 
To  say  the  son  was  the  Father,  is  false  and  absurd. 
Try  the  other  method.  In  the  beginning  was  the 
son,  and  the  son  was  with  the  Father  and  the  holy 
spirit,  and  the  son  was  the  Father  and  holy  spirit. 
This  is  still  worse.  To  say  the  son  was  the  Father 
and  the  holy  spirit,  is  not  only  false  and  absurd,  but 
23 


266 

nonsensical.  You  must  therefore  conclude  the  word 
cannot  mean  the  son  in  any  sense.  And  this  con- 
clusion may  be  confirmed  by  other  passages  from 
the  same  gospel.  Only  a  few  verses  below,  John 
declares — "  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  but 
the  only  begotten  son  hath  declared  the  Father.  If 
the  son  was  God,  he  had  been  seen  by  this  very 
apostle.  But  he  informs  us — not  that  the  son  was 
God — nor  the  Father ;  but  that  he  had  manifested  the 
Father's  perfections  to  the  world  ;  the  Father's  wis- 
do7n  in  his  instructions,  the  Father's  power  in  his 
miraculous  works ;  and  the  Father's  moral  good- 
ness in  his  character ;  so  that  whoever  had  seen  the 
son,  had  seen  all  of  the  Father  that  could  he  mani- 
fested to  mortal  eyes ;  but  the  son  was  not  himself 
that  Father,  nor  a  third  part  of  that  Father.  John 
also  said  that  he  wrote  his  Gospel,  expressly  that 
"  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  son  of 
God:' 

The  "  word''  therefore  means  the  "  power  of  God 
considered  as  in  action ;"  that  wisdom  and  power 
which  have  ever  been  with  God,  even  an  essential 
part  of  himself;  and  which  were  displayed  in  crea- 
tion, in  providence,  in  the  Jewish  dispensation ;  but 
especially,  which  dwelt  in  Jesus,  and  were  mani- 
fested in  his  words  and  works  and  character.  (John 
i.  1,  18;  XX.  31.) 

Thus,  by  laying  aside  the  fables  of  men,  and 
carefully  attending  to  the  scriptures,  we  may  plainly 
discover,  that  in  the  beginning  was  the  word,  and 
the  word  was  with  God,  and  the  word  was  God ; 
without  multiplying  self  existent  eternals,  or  admit- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  267 

ting  the  idea,  that  the  Son  is  the  self  existent  God ; 
which  is  in  the  strongest  manner  denying  the  Son 
of  God. 

The  gentleman  is  very  fastidious  concerning 
prayer.  We  proposed  through  one  of  the  Moderators 
that  Mr.  M'Calla  should  close  the  discussion  on 
Tuesday  evening  by  prayer.  He  refused.  We  then 
suggested  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Helme  the  pastor  of  the 
church  should  be  requested  to  open  and  close  each 
session  with  prayer — It  was  not  agreed  to — But  he 
could  not  prevent  (although  quite  agitated),  that  we 
should  devote  a  part  of  our  time  to  this  purpose.  His 
pious  soul  "forbade  him  to  worship  with  a  Heathen 
01  Mahometan  J' ^  "But  (proclaimed)  as  he  has  de- 
parted, I  will  now  lead  in  prayer."  How  unlike 
Him,  who  in  the  agonies  of  death  prayed  even  for  his 
murderers.  But  from  his  statements  our  presence 
quite  unmaned  him  for  prayer.  He  might  exclaim 
like  one  of  old.  "  Ye  have  taken  away  my  Gods, 
and  what  have  I  more  ! !" 

His  arguments  are  as  doubtful  as  his  prayers.  He 
first  contended  that  his  Christ  was  Jehovah,  the  Su- 
preme God ;  in  whom  were  three  persons,  but  one 
being.  But  now  he  contends  that  Christ  is  but  one 
person,  and  that  in  this  person  are  two  distinct  na- 
tures; that  is,  two  distinct  beings.  To  illustrate, 
he  has  brought  man  for  the  best  representation  in 
the  world,  not  as  before  of  the  Trinity,  but  of  two 
beings  in  one  person.  Yes  reader,  hear  him.  There 
are  "  in  this  one  person  two  distinct  beings.^ ^  When 
is  a  man  two  distinct  beings  ?  Before  his  personal 
existence  ?     Or  while  he  is ,  but  one  living  being  ? 


268  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA\s 

Or  after  his  only  person  has  ceased  to  he  ?  We  read 
of  Antichrists — they  are  a  plurahty.  But  to  us 
there  is  "  But  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,^'  one  being — 
one  person,  or  nature — who  gave  his  Soul,  "  himself 
an  oifering  for  sin," — and  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  and  he  is  now  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  a  dis- 
tinct being  from  God.  The  gentleman  could  give  us 
no  Scripture  proof  for  his  double  nature,  double  per- 
son, double  dealing  Christ.  When  "  He  went  into  a 
mountain  to  pray,  and  continued  all  night  in  prayer 
to  God,"  Luke  vi.  12,  was  it  a  soliloquy?  Praying 
to  himself?  Is  it  not  double  dealing,  to  claim  to  be 
God,  if  he  is  ^'^  real  created  humanity  V^  Or  to 
pretend  to  be  man  if  he  is  "the  Almighty  God?" 
Or  if  he  is  both  God  and  man,  a  "  God  man,"  to 
appear  as  the  "  One  Mediator  hetioeen  God  and  men, 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  ?"  Or  is  He  really  all  three  ; 
a  Trinity  of  "  God  the  Creator,"  a  "  real  created 
humanity,"  and  "  The  Mediator  between  God  and 
men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus?"  If  so,  will  the  gentle- 
man please  to  define  the  number  of  persons,  or  be- 
ings, there  are  in  this  Trinity  according  to  his 
"  Mysterious"  vocabulary  ?  To  say  the  best  of  his 
reasoning  it  is  sophistry. 

He  says,  that  "  Trinitarians  teach  the  doctrine  to 
their  children" — and  brings  for  proof  that  "their  ini- 
tiation into  the  church  is  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Tri- 
nity." We  presume  by  this  he  means  when  infants 
are  rantized.  Are  we  to  suppose  by  this  that  they 
receive  as  much  consolation  from  understanding  the 
teaching  of  this  great  mystery,  as  the  old  children  do  ? 

He  speaks  as  if  his  friends  were  disappointed  in 


PUBLIC  DEEATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.       269 

the  "  Old  Soldier,"  that  they  put  too  much  confidence 
in  him.  "  They  had  privately  spoken^  as  if  they 
were  certain  that  my  adversary  would  be  defeated 
if  he  once  got  into  my  clutches."  "But  this  h  not 
my  doctrine !"  No  !  Not  now.  But  was  it  not 
when  he  boasted  about  the  "  Old  Soldier,"  "  the  Ken- 
tucky racer, ^^  "  O'Connell/'  "Congress  of  the  United 
States,"  "the  British  Parliament,"  &C.&C.?  But  he  told 
them  that  they  should  not  put  their  trust  in  him,  but 
in  God.  He  says  "  This  truth  I  have  endeavored  to 
recognise  in  the  present  controversy .  I  have  told 
my  IVIaker  and  Master  in  secret,  that  my  weakness 
and  worthlessness  were  manifest  and  undeniable.'''' 
An  open  confession  is  good  for  the  soul !  If  like 
Balaam  of  old,  he  had  gone  to  the  Lord  before  he 
let  himself  to  put  down  these  unoffending  Christians, 
he  might  have  saved  himself  this  mortification ;  and 
the  Philistines  who  boasted  m  Goliath  as  their 
"  Battering  Ram"  their  disappointment.  The  gen- 
tleman appears  to  be  coming  to  his  senses,  and  a 
right  feeling  when  he  says,  "My  weakness,  and 
ivorthlessness  were  manifest  and  undeniable.^''  He 
has  learnt  a  lesson  ;  but  as  Paul  said  of  certain  cha- 
racters, he  is,  "Ever  learning,  and  never  able  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Now,  as 
Jannes  and  Jambres  withstood  Moses,  so  do  these 
also  resist  the  truth;  men  of  corrupt  minds;  re- 
probate concerning  the  faith.  But  they  shall  pro- 
ceed no  farther ;  for  their  folly  shall  be  manifest 
unto  all  men  as  theirs  also  was."  (2  Tim.  iii.  7.  8.  9.) 
The  gentleman  has  again  lugged  in  the  pitiful 
and  false  report,  charging  us  with  saying,  that  if 
23* 


270 

"Christ  was  God  then  the  devil  was  God ;"  and  to 
make  it  more  ridiculous  he  adds  that  it  was  spoken 
in  a  gigling  manner  in  the  hearing  of  children.  We 
can  prove  by  more  than  ten  witnesses  to  one  who 
were  present  on  that  occasion  that  these  were  not 
our  words.  Why  did  he  not  reply  to  our  remarks 
in  the  discussion ;  and  not  resort  to  this  "  refuge  of 
lies.''  Drowning  men  will  catch  at  straws.  We 
have  already  noticed  the  manner  that  we  spoke  of 
the  application  of  the  term  God.  After  all  his  abuse 
of  our  views,  he  has  avowed  the  same  as  follows, 
«  We  admit  that  the  devil  is  the  God  of  this  world, 
and  that  judges  are  sometimes  called  Gods"  and 
others. — But  he  thinks  he  has  a  patent  right  to  blow 
hot  and  ccJd,  If  he  can  get  his  conscience  fixed,  he  can 
shoot  around  the  stack,  as  well  as  on  a  straight  line. 

Again  the  gentleman  quoted  David  (Ps.  xlv.  6.  7.) 
and  Paul  (Heb.  i.  8.  9.)  "  Unto  the  Son  he  saith, 
Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever:"  this, 
he  boldly  asserted,  proves  the  Son  to  be  the  supreme 
God,  or  God  in  the  highest  sense  !  But  this  is  only  a 
part  of  the  passage.  Why  has  he  avoided  in  every 
instance  to  quote  the  whole  text  when  he  has  referred 
to  it  ?  Because  he  knew  that  it  would  be  fatal  to  his 
argument.  Where  is  his  tender  conscience  ?  It  reads 
thus  "  Unto  the  Son  he  saith.  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is 
for  ever  and  ever :  a  sceptre  of  righteousness  is  the 
sceptre  of  thy  kingdom:  Thou  hast  loved  righteous- 
ness, and  hated  iniquity ;  therefore  God,  even  thy 
God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  thy  fellows." 

Now  if   his   statement   is   correct,  his    supreme 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITr.  .271 

God  has  a  God,  who  hath  anointed  him !  And  that 
above  his  fellows  !  And  who  are  his  fellows  ?  Are 
they  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?  Three  co-equal  fellows  ?  How  and 
why  should  one  of  them  exalt  another  ?  "  Thou  hast 
loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity ;  therefore 
God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee"  &:c.  What, 
one  co-equal  rev/ard  another  co-equal  for  his  love 
and  obedience  ?  If  the  Father  and  Holy  Ghost  are 
his  fellows,  was  not  the  Son  "  anointed  with  the  oil 
of  gladness  above"  the  Father  and  the  Spirit?  And 
having  said  that  He  who  was  thus  anointed,  is  one  of 
the  persons  in  the  divine  essence,  he  cannot  resort  to 
the  subterfuge,  the  "created  humanity!"  But  he 
says  that  the  God  anointed,  and  God  the  anointer  are 
a  "plurality  of  persons  in  one  divine  essence." — 
One  being — not  two  !  Then  the  one  God  anointed, 
rewarded  and  exalted  himself !  !  Does  this  better  the 
matter  ?  No  !  It  denies  the  Father  and  the  Son  who 
are  two  beings.  As  the  truth  saith  ''T\\q  living 
Father  sent  me  and  I  live  by  the  Father. — As  the 
Father  hath  life  in  himself  so  hath  he  given  to  the 
Son  to  have  life  in  himself. — Ye  have  both  seen  and 
hated  both  me  and  my  Father."  "  He  that  denieth 
the  Father  and  the  Son  hath  not  God,  but  is  an  anti- 
christ.^^ 

To  understand  the  words,  we  must  remember  that 
Paul's  object  was  to  prove  to  the  Hebrews,  from  their 
own  scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God  and 
superior  to  Moses  and  their  prophets,  hence  he  began 
by  saying  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  divers 
manners  spake  unto  the  Fathers  by  the  prophets. 


272  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

hath  in  these  last  days  (of  that  age)  spoken  unto  us 
by  his  Son :"  then  puts  this  question  to  the  Hebrews 
(i.  5.).  "For  unto  which  of  the  angels  saith  he  at 
any  time  thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee?'^  "This  day,"  not  as  his  Creed  says  "  Eternally 
begotten,"  which  Adam  Clarke  says,  is  "Eternal 
nonsense."  (read  Ps.  ii.  7.)  And  again  "I  will  be  to 
him  a  Father  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son,"  (Ps. 
Ixxxix.  26.  27.)  Again (Heb.  1.6.).  "When  he  bring- 
eth  the  first  begotten  into  the  world,  he  saith,  and 
let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  (Ps. 
xcvii.  7.)  Again  the  words  under  consideration, 
"  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for 
ever  and  ever:"  "Thou  hast  loved  righteousness, 
and  hated  iniquity,  therefore  God,  even  thy  God,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fel- 
lows." These  arguments  of  the  Apostle  the  He- 
brews could  not  refute.  Another  witness  saith  "God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  holy  spirit  and 
power,  who  went  about  doing  good,  for  God  was 
with  him."  Hence  he  is  called  "the  anointed,"  "the 
Messiah,"  "the  Christ"  of  God.  Moses  was  a  God 
or  Head  to  the  Jews.  Christ  is  a  God  or  Head  to  the 
"  Glorious  Church,"  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  But 
the  head  of  Moses  was  God,  and  saith  Paul  "the 
HEAD  of  Christ  IS  God."  With  these  views  all  the 
scriptures  agree.  And  we  believe  them.  Now  to  as- 
sert as  the  gentleman  did,  that  these  passages  prove 
Christ  to  be  the  most  high  God,  "absolutely  God 
without  any  qualifying  term,'^  is  not  only  contradict- 
ing David  who  in  spirit  called, him  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  object  of  Paul's  argument,  but  also  the  posi- 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  273 

tive  language  of  the  text  which  says,  that  that  God  is 
his  God,  and  that  He  is  both  "  the  anointed,'^  and  the 
Son  of  that  God.  And  he  who  is  so  bhnd  as  not  to 
see  it  after  examining  the  subject,  must  be  more 
attached  to  his  creed  and  party  than  to  God  and  his 
word. 

The  gentleman  says  "  When  Jude  calls  Christ  the 
only  Divine  Potentate,  he  does  not  mean  to  contra- 
dict Paul  in  his  declaration,  that  the  Father  is  the 
blessed  and  only  Potentate."  No.  The  Apostle's 
preaching  was  yea  and  Amen,  not  yea  and  nay  like 
the  creed  makers' !  Jude  so  far  from  contradicting 
Paul,  has  never  called  Christ  "  The  only  Divine  Po- 
tentate." Potentate  does  not  occur  in  his  letter.  But 
he  uniformly  speaks  of  Christ  and  the  Father  as  two 
distinct  beings,  thus,  "Jude  the  servant  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  by  God  the  Father, 
and  preserved  in  Jesus  Christ."  And  when  he 
speaks  of  "  the  only  wise  God,"  he  alludes  to  the 
same  being  in  contradistmction  to  the  Son,  as  the 
Son  does  when  in  prayer  to  his  Father,  he  calls  him 
"The  only  true  God."  Jude  emphatically  speaks 
of  "  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  migodly  men, 
turning  the  grace  of  God  into  lasciviousness,  and 
denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.''  Do  not  those  deny  the  only  Lord  God  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  say  they  are  one  being, 
or  that  Christ  is  the  only  wise  God  ?  Jude  calls  them 
"  ungodly  men,  denying  the  only  Lord  God."  How  ? 
By  teaching  that  there  are  two  others  with  the  o7ily 
Lord  God,  co-equal  with  himself.  They  also,  ^'deny 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  holding  him  to  be  only  the 


274 

manhood  of  the  second  Lord  God.  Peter  calls  these 
ungodly  men,  ^^ false  teachers,  bringmg  in  damnable 
heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord  that  bought  them ; 
by  reason  of  whom  the  way  of  truth  shall  be  evil 
spoken  o/."  (2  Pet.  ii.  1.  2.  3.)  The  gentleman 
says,  the  Lard  did  not  die.  That  the  Son  of  God 
could  not  die.  That  the  human  nature  only  suffered, 
the  mere  ''manhood''^  of  the  second  person  of  his 
IDOL  died.  Is  not  this  denying  "Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"  that  "gave  himself  a  ransom  for  us?  Is  it 
not  denying  "The  Lord  that  bought  us}"  Is  it  not 
what  Paul  calls  treading  underfoot  the  son  of  God 
and  the  blood  of  the  covenant?"  (Heb.  x.  29.)  We 
read  that  God  "  Spared  not  his  oivn  Son,  but  de- 
livered him  up  for  us  all."  (Rom.  viii.  32.)  That, 
"we  are  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son." 
(v.  10.)  That  "we  are  redeemed  with  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ."  And  that  God  hath  "  made  that 
same  Jesus  who  was  crucified  both  Lord  and  Christ." 
(Acts.  ii.  36.)  Therefore  we  "Joy  in  God  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  we  have  received 
the  atonement."     (Rom.  v.  IL) 

The  gentleman  is  at  an  utter  loss  to  know  what  is 
meant  by  God^s  own  Son,  and  only  begotten  Son. 
His  Idols  entirely  shut  out  the  rays  of  light  so  that 
his  mind  can  not  discern  the  simplicity  of  the  word 
of  God.  I  do  not  wonder  that  he  doubted  upon  his 
hypothesis,  how  the  very  same  being  can  be  his 
own,  and  only  begotten  Son — nor  how  another  co- 
eternal,  co-equal  person  in  the  same  God,  can  be  that 
God's  own  dear  and  only  begotten  Son.  "  It  is  a  great 
mystery."— No  !    It  is  a   GREAT  MISTAKE  ! ! ! 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  275 

Or  is  not  the  following  from  the  creed  of  one  of  his 
brethren,  gross  and  absurd  idolatry  ?  "  The  Son  co- 
exists with  God  unbegottenly,  being  ever  begotten, 
unbegottenly  begotten;  God  of  God,  true  God  of 
true  God."  This  is  one  of  the  mysteries,  the  gentle- 
man says  he  can  understand,  but  not  comprehend  I 
And  woe  to  him  that  will  not  lie  to  his  conscience, 
and  say  that  he  believes  and  understands  it,  when  he 
does  NOT  !  If  he  would  give  up  his  creed  and  read 
carefully  (Ps.  ii.  7.)  "  thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee" — "When  (Gal.  iv.  4.  Acts.  xiii.  23.) 
the  fulness  of  time  was  come  God  sent  forth  his  Son 
made  of  a  woman."  (Luke  ii.  11.)  "For  unto  you 
is  born  this  day  in  the  city  of  David  a  saviour  which 
is  Christ  the  Lord."  And  God  owned  or  acknow- 
ledged him  at  his  baptism  as  his  '•  well  beloved,'^  (Rom. 
viii.  32.)  "own,  dear.  Son,"  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  26.  27.)  "  his 
first  born,"  (Heb.  i.  3,  5.)  "his  full  image,  even  the 
brightness  of  his  glory  and  the  express  image  of 
his  person."  (John  i.  14.  18.)  "And  we  beheld 
his  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father  full  of  grace  and  truth,"  in  whom  alone 
dwelt  the  full  knowledge  of  the  invisible  God  that  he 
'^ might  declare  him."  (Col.  i.  15.  18.)  "For  he  is  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  first  born  (the  highest 
in  authority)  of  every  creature ;  the  head  of  the 
body  the  church,  the  first  born  from  the  dead  ;  that 
in  all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence,' '  (Rev. 
i.  5.)  Jesus  Christ  who  is  the  faithful  witness  and 
first  begotten  from  the  dead,  and  the  "  prince  of  the 
Kings  of  the  earth."  And  this  divine  brightness  of 
God's  glory  and  express  image  of  his  person,  and 


276 

fulness  of  the  grace,  knowledge,  and  glory  of  the  m- 
visible  Father  was  never  defaced  nor  defiled  hi  hmi ; 
but  he  wd.s' obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of 
the  cross,  wherefore  God  did  not  suifer  him  to  see 
corruption,  but  exalted  him  "far  above  all  heavens,'* 
at  his  own  right  hand.  (Eph.  i.  20.  iv.  10.)  I  say- 
let  the  gentleman  read  all  this  and  the  corroborat- 
ing passages,  and  facts,  and  then  he  may  under- 
stand without  one  single  doubt  how  and  ivhy,  Jesus 
both  is,  and  is  called  in  truth  and  love,  the  own  and 
only  begotten  Son  of  God. — Amen. 

The  gentleman  quotes  (Isaiah  xliv.  6.).  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his  redeemer 
the  Lord  of  Hosts ;  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the 
last ;  and  besides  me  there  is  no  God ;"  and  remarks, 
"  Candid  intelligence  will  own,  that  he  distinguishes 
this  divine  redeemer  as  supreme,  and  as  co-equal 
with  the  Father  and  his  spirit."  Candid  intelligence 
then  must  own  that  the  "  Redeemer  of  Israel,  who 
saith  I  am  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  besides  me  there  is 
no  God,"  is  not  the  Father  nor  his  spirit.  Shall  we 
believe  him,  or  Paul  who  saith  "  But  to  us  there  is 
but  one  God  the  Father?'^ 

Again  in  (Isaiah  xlv.  22.)  "  I  am  God  and  there 
is  none  else,"  he  remarks,  "  Does  he  mean  to  deny 
that  the  devil  is  the  God  of  this  world  ?  Instead  of 
this  he  means  to  assert  that  the  speaker  is  the  God 
of  Heaven,  an  equal  person  with  the  Father  in  one 
essence."  Is  not  this  asserti7ig  that  the  Father  is 
another  equal  God,  besides  the  God  of  Heaven? 
Where  is  his  conscience  ? 

He  adds,  "  In  the  same  place  just  referred  to,  the 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  277 

second  person  of  the  Trinity,  says  '  There  is  no  God 
besides  me,  a  just  God  and  a  saviour;  there  is  noiie 
besides  me  J  "  How  does  he  know  that  it  was  the 
second  person  that  spoke  ?  And  how  does  he  know 
that  "  He  meant  no  denial  of  other  supreme  divini- 
ties/' when  he  repeatedly  ^xA  positively  assert s^ih^X 
/'There  is  NO  God  beside  me  ?''  Now  either  the  Son  is 
not  "True  God  of  true  God/'  or  the  gentleman 
charges  him  with  positively  denying  the  Father  and 
the  Spirit;  for  he  says  that  it  is  "The  SECOND 
person  of  the  trinity/'  who  asserts  "'  There  is  NO 
God  besides  ME."  To  which  horn  of  the  dilemma 
will  he  cling  ?  To  both  ? !  We  believe  that  it  was 
God  himself  who  spoke  by  the  Prophet,  and  that  he 
meant  what  he  said. 

Again  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.  IS.)  David  says  of  the  Father, 
"  Thou  whose  name  alone  is  Jehovah,  art  the  most 
high  over  all  the  earth."  The  very  learned  gentle- 
man says,  "  Here  are  two  expressions  denoting  su- 
premacy, he  who  is  most  high  is  supreme,  and  he 
who  is  over  all  is  supreme."  He  adds,  "  But  a  good 
rule  works  both  ways."  What !  True  and  false? 
Working  out  palpable  contradictions  ?  The  most 
high  over  all  the  earth  alone  Jehovah ;  and  yet  two 
more  most  high  Jehovahs  ?  His  "  good  rule"  has  not 
yet  worked  out  any  evidence  that  "  The  most  high, 
who  alone  is  Jehovah,  has  two  in  company,  who  are 
equally  most  high  Jehovahs.  When  he  shall  have 
accomplished  that,  he  will  be  able  to  redeem  his 
boasted  pledge  made  at  the  outset,  that  he  would 
show  his  opponent's  doctrine  to  be  equally  absurd 
as  to  say  three  persons  are  one  person,  or  three 
24 


278  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's 

beings  are  one  being,  or  once  one  is  two  !  Then,  if 
these  were  our  views,  they  would  be  absurd,  him- 
self being  judge.  But  the  "  saddle  is  on  the  other 
horse,"  or  as  Paul  saith,  "  In  so  speaking  thou  con- 
demnest  thyself!"  "  Thou  therefore,  which  teachest 
another,  teachest  thou  not  thyself?  Thou  that  ab- 
horrest  idols,  dost  thou  commit  sacrilege .?"  When 
"  Benhadad  king  of  Syria  defied  Israel  by  "  The 
gods,''  ^-  The  king  of  Israel  answered,  let  not  him 
that  girdeth  on  his  harness  boast  himself,  as  he  that 
putteth  it  off."     (1  Kings,  xx.  11.) 

Again  he  says,  "  if  (the  Son)  our  redeemer  be 
most  high,  and  if  he  be  over  all  God,  then  his  su- 
jivemacy  should  be  admitted."  Granted.  If  he  be 
over  all  God  !  This  he  has  yet  to  prove.  So  he  ad- 
mits, by  the  following  remark,  "  A  very  little  time 
will  serve  to  show  you,  that  these  expressions  are 
used  to  denote  the  supreme  divinity  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  Here  in  the  last 
fiickerings  of  his  last  speech  he  has  all  of  his  boasted 
pledges  to  redeem.  First  we  are  to  "admit  that 
Christ  is  the  only  true,  supreme,  eternal  God." 
And  then  "  A  very  little  time  will  serve  to  show  the 
supreme  divinity  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost!" 
What  is  the  meaning  of  supreine  ?  Can  there  be 
more  than  one  supreme  ?  Is  supremacy  equality  ? 
If  three  persons  are  co-equal  in  every  sense,  does  it 
not  prevent  the  supremacy  of  each  ?  And  if  one 
of  these  three  supreme  equals,  has  taken  a  "  very 
man"  of  "two  more  beings  in  one  person,"  into 
"  inseparable  union,"  does  it  not  make  him  to  be 
superior  to  the  other  two  supremes  ?  Is  it  true  that 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  279 

the  Son  is  superior  to  the  Father  ?  The  gentleman 
did  not  show  in  his  "very  httle  time"  what  he 
promised.  But  this  is  an  age  of  promises — and 
failures  ! 

Again,  he  quotes  Paul's  exhortation  to  the  Corin- 
thians "  not  to  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  the  Israelites 
tempted  God  and  Moses,  and  were  destroyed  of  ser- 
pents,'' (Num.  xxi.  4 — 9.)  of  which  David  says, 
"They  tempted  and  provoked  the  most  high  God." 
This  the  gentleman  says  is  Christ.  He  is  so  "  drunk 
with  the  wine  of  abominations  of  the  golden  cup 
of  the  mother  of  Harlots,  whose  name  is  mystery, 
BABYLON  the  great,"  (Rcv.  xvU.  3 — 5.)  that  he 
calls  these  words  of  David  of  the  past  history  of 
Israel,  a  prophecy  of  Christ ;  thus,  "  Will  David 
answer  for  a  Prophet?  He  says  of  Christ,  they 
tempted  and  provoked  the  most  high  God."  He 
would  make  David  and  Paul  guilty  of  contradicting 
themselves  as  he  does.  So  far  from  calling  Jesus  the 
most  high  God,  Paul  in  the  preceding  chapter  of 
this  epistle  says,  "  There  is  no  other  God  but  one  ; 
though  there  be  that  are  called  Gods  and  Lords 
many  5  but  to  us  there  is  but  07ie  God  the  Father, 
of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  in  him ;  and  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  we  by  him."  (viii.  6.)  With 
this  all  his  writings  agree. 

Again  he  remarks,  "In  Luke  i.  76.  Zecharias 
says  to  his  newborn  son,  John  the  Baptist,  *and 
thou  child  shalt  be  called  the  prophet  of  the  highest, 
for  thou  shalt  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  to  pre- 
pare his  way !'  Here  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the  Highest !" 
Does  the  gentleman  never    read   the   connection? 


280  PLUMMER  AND  m'cALLA's      ' 

Nor  suppose  that  his  hearers  read?  In  the  1 1th  verse 
of  the  next  chapter  Luke  records  the  anouncement 
of  Gabriel  unto  the  Shepherds,  "  Unto  you  is  born 
this  day,  i7i  the  citi/  of  David  a  saviour  which  is 
Christ  the  Lord."  What !  make  the  angel  to  say  that 
the  most  high  God  was  born  that  day  in  the  city  of 
David  ?  Why  not  read  the  corroborating  passages  in 
(Mai.  iii.  1.  2.  and  Mark.  i.  1 — 3.)  where  it  is  said 
that  John  came  to  ^^  Prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  the  SON  of  GOD." 

He  remarks  agam,  Paul  says,  Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Of 
whom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is 
over  all  God  blessed  for  ever."  He  adds,  "  Here 
we  have  Christ  declared  to  be  the  Highest  Lord, 
and  over  all  God,  as  David  declared  his  Father  to 
be."  Has  David  or  Paul  ever  said  that  the  HIGH- 
EST Lord  God  over  ALL  has  a  Father  ? 

"  Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  by  natural 
descent,  Christ  came.  God,  who  is  over  all,  be 
blessed  for  ever.     Amen." 

"See  Clarke  on  the  Trinity,  No.  539;  and  Mr. 
Lindsey's  Second  Address  to  the  Students  of  the 
Two  Universities,  p.  278.  The  common  version 
here  adopted  by  Dr.  Newcome  is,  "  who  is  over  all, 
God  blessed  for  ever."  But  the  translation  of  Dr. 
Clarke  and  Mr.  Lmdsey  equally  well  suits  the  con- 
struction. See  Erasmus.  In  this  sense  it  is  proba- 
ble that  the  early  Christian  writers  understood  the 
words,  who  do  not  apply  them  to  Christ,  but  pro- 
nounce it  to  be  rashness  and  impiety  to  say  that 
Christ  was  God  over  all.  The  word  ^  God'  appears 
to  have  been  wanting  in  Chrysostom's  and  some 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.  281 

Other  ancient  copies.  See  Grotius,  Erasmus,  and 
Griesbach.  It  is  a  very  plausible  conjecture  of 
Crellius,  Slichtingius,  Whitby,  and  Taylor,  that 
the  original  reading  was  'r.y  5,  instead  of  c  uv.  This 
would  render  the  climax  complete,  ^'  of  whom  was 
the  adoption,  of  whom  were  the  fathers,  of  whom 
was  Christ,  of  whom  was  God  who  is  over  all/' 
Nor  is  it  likely,  when  the  apostle  was  professedly 
summing  up  the  privileges  of  the  Jews,  that  he 
should  have  overlooked  the  great  privilege  which 
was  their  chief  boast,  that  God  was  in  a  peculiar 
sense  their  God.  See  Dr.  Taylor's  note  upon  the 
text."    See  Improved  version. 

To  understand  these  words,  z/they  allude  to  Christ, 
we  must  keep  in  view  that  the  first  point  Paul  was 
laboring  to  establish  was,  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,  and  Head  of  the  new  dispensation.  In  the 
fourth  verse  of  this  epistle  he  says,  "  Christ  is  de- 
clared to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  according 
to  the  Spirit  of  holiness  by  the  resurrection  from  the 
dead."  And  that  God  '^  hath  given  Clirist  to  be 
head  over  all  things  to  the  Church.'^  As  Christ  said, 
after  his  resurrection,  "  all  power  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  earth,  go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all 
nations  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,''  (the  Com- 
forter which  the  Father  gave  to  the  Son,  and  the 
Son  sent  it  forth  upon  the  apostles  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  by  which  they  were  empowered  to  carry 
into  full  effect  that  dispensation  of  which  God  had 
given  Christ  to  be  the  Head.)  (John  xiv.  16,  26.  xv. 

24^ 


SS2  PLUMMER  AND  M^CALLA'S 

26,  xvi.  7;  Acts  ii.  33.)  Hence  Paul  said,  "But 
when  he  saith  all  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is 
manifest  that  God  is  excepted  which  did  put  all 
things  under  Christ.  And  when  all  things  shall  be 
subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself 
be  subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  imder  him, 
that  God  may  he  all  in  all."  (1  Cor.  xv.  27,  28.) 
And  "  The  Head  of  Christ  is  God."  Therefore  he 
closes  this  epistle  in  the  following  conclusive  lan- 
guage, "To  God  ONLY  wise,  be  glory  THROUGH 
Jesus  Christ  for  ever.  Amen."  Hence  the  apostle 
could  have  no  such  doctrme  in  view  as  our  oppo- 
nent contends  for.   Rom.  16 — 27. 

We  have  now  come  to  his  last  text  (Luke  i.  35.) 
which  is  cited  to  prove  the  supremacy  of  the  Spirit, 
a  co-equal  person  in  the  Trmity.  "  And  the  angel 
answered  and  said  unto  her.  The  Holy  Ghost  shall 
come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall 
overshadow  thee ;  therefore  also  that  Holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God."  These  words  are  a  complete  refutation  of 
his  system.  But  he  says,  that  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
we  are  to  understand  the  third  "  distinction^^  in  the 
Godhead.  Gabriel  explains  it  to  be  "  the  jyoiver  of 
the  Highest."  The  person  born  of  Mary,  he  says 
is  the  second  "distinction"  in  the  Trinity,  or  rather 
the  Manhood  of  that  "  distinction ;"  no.  He  is  the 
Highest  himself !  But  Gabriel  says,  that  "  He  shall 
be  called  the  SON  of  God ;"  and  in  verse  32,  "  He 
shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the 
HIGHEST ;  and  the  Lord  God  shall  GIVE  unto 


PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITY.       283 

him  the  throne  of  his  Father  David."  Which  shall 
we  beheve,  him  or  Gabriel?  But  he  is  in  doubt 
himself;  he  says,  "  Whether  the  title  here,  (the 
Highest)  bQ  understood  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Spi- 
rit, it  is  well  known  that  they  who,  like  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  sin  against 
God."  This  is  true,  therefore  his  hypothesis  that 
the  "Spirit  and  power"  of  God  is  a  person  or  being 
distinct  from  God  is  false.  We  think  he  doubts  his 
articles,  at  least  the  third  person.  His  last  text, 
and  the  one  brought  to  explain  it,  together  with  his 
remarks,  are  against  the  point  he  would  sustain.  His 
efforts  and  arguments  are  suicidal,  like  the  animal 
that  in  attempting  to  swim  cuts  its  throat. 

Thus  we  have  gone  through  with  the  gentleman's 
last  speech.  And  like  those  preceding,  it  is  an  utter 
failure.  And  he  must  have  felt  it  in  his  conscience, 
when  he  said  my  weakness  is  manifest  and  unde- 
niahle.  We  assure  him  that  the  iveakness  and  fal- 
sity of  his  creed  is  equally  manifest  and  undeniable. 
And  that  we  feel  by  this  investigation  confirmed  in 
"  The  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  "And  this 
we  confess  unto  thee,  that  after  the  way  which  ye 
call  heresy,  so  ivorship  we  the  GOD  OF  OUR  FA- 
THERS, believi7ig  all  things  which  are  written  in 
the  law  and  the  prophets :  and  have  hope  toward 
God :  and  herein  do  we  exercise  ourselves,  to  have 
always  a  CONSCIENCE  void  of  offence  toward 
God,  and  toward  men."  Acts  xxiv.  14.  16.  We 
are  happy  also  to  learn  that  many  who  came  to  the 
discussion  bigoted  sectarians,  have  abandoned  all 


284  PUBLIC  DEBATE  ON  THE  TRINITr. 

creeds  for  the  Holy  Scriptures;  and  now  acknow- 
ledge but  "  ONE  LORD,  one  faith,  one  baptism, 
ONE  GOD  and  FATHER  of  all,  who  is  ABOVE 
a//."  Eph.  iv.  5,  6.  And  we  do  sincerely  wish  by- 
all  the  preciousness  of  the  truth  of  God,  and  the 
solemnity  of  its  eternal  interests,  that  the  same  happy 
result  may  be  experienced  by  our  opponent. 

Reader: — Sectarians  to  sustain  their  systems, 
"  darken  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge.'^ 
Job  xxxviii.  2.  "  They  speak  great  swelling  loords 
of  vanity,  because  of  advantage."  2  Pet.  ii.  18. 
Jude  16.  They  will  not  "consent  to  wholesome 
words,  even  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
but  are  proud  and  doting  about  questions  and 
strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,'^  1  Tim.  vi. 
3—5.  But  "  THE  WORDS  OF  THE  SPIRIT," 
by  the  Prophets,  and  upon  the  Tables  of  Stone,  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  were  "  words  easy  to  be 
understood^''  1  Cor.xiv.  9,  even  "  a  pure  language,^^ 
Zeph.  iii.  9,  and  ^' plain  sound  speech  that  cannot 
be  condemned  :"  2  Cor.  iii.  12.  Titus  ii.  8.  "  The 
words  of  ETERNAL  LIFE."     John  vi.  68. 

"  Men's  books  with  heaps  of  chaflf  are  stor'd  ; 
God's  book  doth  golden  grains  aftbrd  : 
Then  leave  the  chaff,  and  spend  thy  pains, 
In  gathering  up  the  golden  grains." 


NOTE. 

Much  has  been  said  upon  the  following  language 
from  Isaiah,  chap.  liv.  5th  verse.  "  For  thy  Maker 
is  thine  husband."  It  is  said  that  in  the  Hebrew, 
the  termination  is  in  the  plinal,  thus,  "  thy  Makers 
is  thine  husbands."  The  whole  passage  and  its 
connection  will  show  from  the  manner  in  which  Gk»d 
is  spoken  of  in  the  singular,  that  we  are  not  to  mi- 
derstand  that  there  is  a  plurality  of  Creators. 

"  For  thy  Maker  is  thine  husband ;  the  Lord  of 
hosts  is  his  name ;  and  thy  Redeemer,  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel ;  the  God  of  the  whole  earth  shall  he  be 
called.  For  the  Lord  hath  called  thee  as  a  woman 
forsaken  and  grieved  in  spirit,  and  a  wife  of  youth, 
when  thou  wast  refused,  saith  thy  God.  For  a 
small  moment  have  /  forsaken  thee  ;  but  with  great 
mercies  will  /  gather  thee.  In  a  little  wrath  /hid 
my  face  from  thee  for  a  moment;  but  with  ever- 
lasting kindness  will  /  have  mercy  on  thee,  saith  the 
Lord  thy  Redeemer.  For  this  is  as  the  waters  of 
Noah  unto  me;  for  as  /have  sworn  that  the  waters 
of  Noah  should  no  more  go  over  the  earth ;  so  have 
/sworn  that  /would  not  be  wroth  with  thee,  nor 
rebuke  thee."   5 — 9. 

*•  It  has  been  urged  by  trinitarian  writers,  that  the 
Hebrew  word  rendered  God,  is  Elohim  or  Aleim, 
and  of  a  plural  termination,  though  construed  with 
a  verb  in  the  singular ;  thus  God  created  may  be 
rendered  literally,  Gods  he  created.     From  this  irre- 

(285) 


(286) 

gularity  in  the  Hebrew  language  some  trinitarian 
writers  would  infer^  a  plurality  of  divine  persons. 
But  other  writers  on  that  side  of  the  question,  par- 
ticularly Calvin,  sensible  of  the  weakness  of  this  ar- 

•  j 

gument  have  fairly  given  it  up,  and  owned  there  is 
no  force  in  it.  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  apos- 
tles in  quoting  passages  from  the  Old  Testament, 
where  the  word  Elohim  occurs,  translate  it  always 
by  Theos,  or  God,  in  the  singular.  After  this,  no 
more  needs  be  said  on  the  subject." 

In  Wilson's  Hebrew  Grammar,  the  following  rule 
in  relation  to  Hebrew  nomis  occurs  : 

"  Words  that  express  dominion,  dignity,  and  ma- 
jesty, are  commonly  put  in  the  plural.^^  Hence  the 
application  of  the  word  "Elohim"  to  any  exalted 
character,  or  dignified  being,  cannot  be  given  as 
evidence  to  prove  that  there  is  contained  in  such  a 
being,  a  plurality  of  persons.  It  should  be  observed 
here  that  although  in  the  New  Testament,  the  plural 
pronoun  is  not  ONCE  applied  to  God,  and  perad- 
venture  in  the  Old  Testament  not  more  than  FOUR 
times,  yet  in  the  Bible,  God  is  denominated  plainly 
by  the  singular  term,  in  many  thousand  instances. 
If  therefore  the  decision  of  this  great  and  important 
question,  viz :  a  "  plurality  of  creators"  must  depend 
on  the  number  of  plural  pronouns  that  are  applied 
to  him  in  the  sacred  oracles,  the  evidence  will  be 
against  it  in  proportion  of  thousands  of  the  singular, 
to  one  of  the  plural. 

Trinitarians  cannot  produce  one  book  of  Jewish 
authorship  of  any  note  that  teaches  a  trinity  of  per- 
sons in  God.    Revelation  inculcates  no  such  doctrine 


(287) 

nor  did  tradition  even  favor  it  prior  to  the  corrupt  and 
dark  age,  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  in  which 
this  monstrous  absurdity  was  originated  at  the  Council 
of  Nice,  and  which  was  proclaimed  as  the  standard 
of  Orthodoxy,  by  a  meagre  minority  sustained  by 
the  civil  authorities.  Let  the  facts  speak  aloud  for 
themselves — for  who  can  resist  the  power  of  Truth. 

^^Josephus  a  native  of  Egypt,  but  a  Christian 
priest''  relates  "that  2048  bishops  met  at  Nice,  and 
that  the  Emperor  commanded  that  the  Creed  drawn 
up  by  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  should  be  read  in 
the  Synod.  318  bishops  embraced  it,  1730  differed 
in  various  ways,  neither  agreeing  in  their  general 
sentiments,  nor  any  one  article  of  Faith." 

^^  Ismael  Ibn  Jili,  a  Mohammedan  historian  of 
great  and  extended  reputation"  says,  "The  afore- 
said 318  bishops,  moreover  assenting  to  the  ordinance 
of  Constantine,  set  forth  the  Christian  Faith  in  a 
diiferent  manner  from  what  had  been  current  as 
such  heretofore." 

"But  it  is  a  surprising  circumstance,  that  1730 
bishops  assembled  from  all  parts  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, however  much  they  might  differ  from  one  an- 
other in  other  points,  should  yet  all  agree  in  rejecting 
the  Nicene  Creed;  and  that  only  318,  not  a  sixth 
part  of  2048  bishops  that  were  called  to  this  Council, 
should  adopt  it." 

From  this  view  of  things,  it  is  manifest,  that  the 
Council  of  Nice,  cannot  be  considered  as  a  fair  re- 
presentation of  the  Christian  Church  at  the  time  it 
was  held ;  nor  can  the  Creed  that  was  adopted,  by 
those  comparatively  few  bishops  that  were  permit- 


(288) 

ted  to  sit  and  vote  in  it,  be  received  as  a  just  and 
true  expression  of  the  general  sentiments  of  Chris- 
tians at  that  period." 

From  the  foregoing  account  it  can  be  plainly  dis- 
cerned how  the  falsely  called  orthodox  system  was 
originated  and  finished — having  been  patched  up 
and  pieced  out  at  four  different  councils.  Hence 
all  the  modern  Creeds,  Articles,  and  Confessions 
of  Faith,  of  established  churches  in  Christendom, 
hang  upon  these  corrupt  councils  of  designing  men, 
influenced  solely  by  the  love  of  power  and  self  ag- 
grandizement ;  and  not  upon  the  word  of  God. 

The  following  extract  is  from  a  work  recently 
published  by  a  highly  respectable  Jew  in  defence  of 
their  faith,  in  one  only  true  and  living  God.  "  What 
Israelite  from  the  mission  of  Moses,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  second  temple,  ever  believed  in  an  adjunct 
deity  ?" 

It  is  worse  than  idle  to  refer  to  the  Bible  in  the 
original,  or  any  other  tongue  to  support  the  fabrica- 
tions of  those  corrupt  bishops  at  the  council  of  Nice. 

There  would  be  no  difticulty  in  religious  matters, 
if  mankind  would  totally  discard  ALL  creeds  and 
inventions  of  men,  which  have  confused  the  world 
for  more  than  fifteen  centuries.  All  should  consult 
the  book  of  inspiration  and  unite  upon  that  blessed 
gift  of  God. 


THE    END. 


.:  4^,-. 


.^*' '  ■* , 


^i^y--'. 


■  ^^:-' 


-  ^  "' , 


k■^■-."  "r" 


